East Coast Timber Products Pty Ltd v Hancock (No 2)

In the case of East Coast Timber Products Pty Ltd v Hancock (No 2), the court addressed issues concerning the adequacy of reasons provided by an arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding. The primary dispute involved whether Mr Hancock had adequately reported an injury sustained at work on 31 October 2005 and the subsequent impact on his ability to claim worker’s compensation. The court was required to determine whether the arbitrator had sufficiently articulated the essential grounds upon which his decisions were based, particularly in light of the submissions made by the parties during the arbitration.

The court found that the arbitrator had failed to adequately address several key issues raised by the submissions from Mr Hancock’s solicitor, Mr Mulcahy. Specifically, the arbitrator did not sufficiently discuss the submissions about the reporting of the injury on 31 October 2005 and the absence of a WorkCover medical certificate. Furthermore, the arbitrator did not address the discrepancies in the dates of injury as stated by Mr Hancock in his two statements. The court concluded that the arbitrator's reasons were insufficient because they did not generally and briefly state the grounds for the conclusions on disputed factual questions or list the findings on principal contested issues, as required.

Consequently, the court revoked the arbitrator's determination of 26 May 2009 and remitted the matter to a different arbitrator for re-determination of the issues of causation, incapacity, and, if necessary, hospital and medical expenses. The costs of the first and second arbitrations were to follow the event of the second arbitration, and each party was to bear its own costs of the appeal.