Energo Form Act Pty Ltd v Beljan - [2015] ACTSC 257

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Energo Form ACT Pty Ltd v Beljan
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 257
Hearing Date:	5 May 2014
Date last submissions received:	12 May 2014
DecisionDate:	28 August 2015
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The Chief Magistrate’s findings that the ACT was the jurisdiction of connection for the respondent’s workers’ compensation claim and that the respondent was a “worker” for the appellant are set aside. 3. The matter is remitted to the Magistrates Court to be determined according to law. 4. Orders 1 to 3 are stayed until further order of the court. 5. The parties are to provide further submissions about the orders by a date to be fixed.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO AND LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION – Persons entitled to compensation – whether respondent was a “worker” – whether jurisdiction of connection can be determined without determination of whether claimant is a “worker” and what work is done as a “worker”. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO AND LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION – Persons entitled to compensation – determination of jurisdiction of connection – employer’s principal place of business is the place from which the employer conducts its business, not the place at which most of the employer’s work is done. APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Interference with Judge’s Findings of Fact – findings of fact not articulated – no findings made on challenges to respondent’s credibility – no scope for appeal court to make necessary findings of fact – matter to be remitted to Magistrates Court.
Legislation Cited:	Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 100 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s, 274; pt 4.5 Worker’s Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 20(4) Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT), ss 8(1), 8(1)(a), 36B, 36B(3), 116, 195, 197
Cases Cited:	Abdalla v Viewdaze Pty Ltd (2003) 53 ATR 30 Bratislav Beljan v Energo Form ACT Pty Ltd [2013] ACTMC 21 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161 Tamboritha Consultants Pty Ltd v Knight (2008) 58 SR (W.A.) 291 Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] AC 12 Martin v RJ Hibbens Pty Limited [2010] NSWWCCPD 83 Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 Stephan v Pacesetter Cleaning Services Pty Ltd [ (1995) 12 NSWCCR 19 Yaraka Holdings Pty Ltd v Giljevic (2006) 149 IR 339
Parties:	Energo Form ACT Pty Ltd (Appellant) Branislav Beljan (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr R Crowe SC (Appellant) Mr J Wilson (Respondent)
Solicitors Minter Ellison (Appellant) Capital Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 90 of 2013
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Chief Magistrate Walker Date of Decision: 4 October 2013 Case Title: Branislav Beljan v Energo Form ACT Pty Ltd Citation: [2013] ACTMC 21 (4 October 2013)

Introduction

This is an appeal brought by Energo Form ACT Pty Ltd (Energo) from a decision of the Chief Magistrate in relation to preliminary issues arising…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Energo Form Act Pty Ltd v Beljan and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] ACTSC 257
Decision Date: 28 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Energo Form Act Pty Ltd v Beljan, the respondent sought workers’ compensation from the appellant employer. The crux of the dispute was whether the respondent was a "worker" under the Workers’ Compensation Act and, if so, which jurisdiction had the connection to determine the entitlement to compensation. The matter was heard initially in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory and subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues for the court to decide were whether the respondent was a "worker" and, if so, what jurisdiction was the appropriate one to determine the entitlement to compensation. The court had to decide whether the jurisdiction of connection could be determined without first establishing whether the respondent was a "worker" and what work was done as a "worker". Additionally, the court needed to ascertain if the findings of fact made by the Chief Magistrate were sufficient for the appeal court to determine the matter.

The Court of Appeal found that the Chief Magistrate's findings were not articulated clearly enough to allow for an effective review. The Chief Magistrate did not make findings on the challenges to the respondent’s credibility, leaving the appeal court without the scope to make the necessary findings of fact. Consequently, the court held that the matter needed to be remitted to the Magistrates Court for a fresh determination according to law. The appeal court allowed the appeal, set aside the Chief Magistrate's findings, and remitted the matter to the Magistrates Court for further consideration.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal included allowing the appeal, setting aside the Chief Magistrate's findings on jurisdiction and the classification of the respondent as a "worker", and remitting the matter to the Magistrates Court. The orders were stayed until further order of the court, and the parties were directed to provide further submissions regarding the orders by a date to be fixed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The Chief Magistrate’s findings that the ACT was the jurisdiction of connection for the respondent’s workers’ compensation claim and that the respondent was a “worker” for the appellant are set aside.

3. The matter is remitted to the Magistrates Court to be determined according to law.

4. Orders 1 to 3 are stayed until further order of the court.

5. The parties are to provide further submissions about the orders by a date to be fixed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.