El Gusto Ristorante Pty Ltd v Bijas

The appeal concerns findings made by an arbitrator regarding Ms Bijas’s claim for workers' compensation. Ms Bijas alleged she suffered a psychiatric injury arising from her employment, and the matter was referred to an arbitrator for determination. El Gusto Ristorante Pty Ltd, her employer, contested the claim. The primary dispute was over the dependency of Ms Bijas and the quantum of her entitlement to weekly compensation. The dispute was heard and determined by Arbitrator Rimmer, whose decision was then subject to appeal.

The court had to decide whether the Arbitrator's findings were correct, particularly regarding the credibility of Ms Bijas's evidence and the dependency of her spouse. Additionally, the court needed to address the impact of non-compliance with procedural requirements under the former Workers Compensation Rules 2010 on the Arbitrator's decision. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the failure to provide sufficient reasons for the decision as required by Part 15 rule 15.5 of the former Rules affected the outcome.

The court confirmed the Arbitrator's findings that Ms Bijas had indeed suffered a psychiatric injury in the course of her employment. However, the court found that the Arbitrator had erred in his assessment of the dependency of Ms Bijas’s spouse and the quantum of her entitlement to weekly compensation. The court held that these issues needed to be redetermined. The court also held that the Arbitrator's failure to provide sufficient reasons for his decision warranted a redetermination of the outstanding issues. The court remitted the matter back to the original Arbitrator to address these issues, inviting the parties to adduce any additional evidence and submit further submissions.

The court confirmed certain aspects of the Arbitrator's determination but revoked other parts. The matter was sent back to the Arbitrator for redetermination of the dependency and quantum issues, with directions for the parties to provide additional evidence and submissions. The appellant was ordered to pay Ms Bijas's costs of the appeal.