Francis v Publications & Exhibitions Pty Ltd - [2023] WADC 129

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   FRANCIS -v- PUBLICATIONS & EXHIBITIONS PTY LTD [2023] WADC 129
CORAM:   PALMER DCJ
HEARD:   31 OCTOBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   2 NOVEMBER 2023
FILE NO/S:   APP 61 of 2022
BETWEEN:   BRADLEY WILLIAM FRANCIS
Appellant
AND
PUBLICATIONS & EXHIBITIONS PTY LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE
Coram:   ARBITRATOR RUTHERFORD
File Number            :   A63791

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Appeal - Appeal does not involve a question of law - Leave to appeal refused

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Costs ordered

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	No appearance
Respondent	:	Mr T H Offer

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250
Catholic Education Office of WA v Granitto [2012] WASCA 266
Department of Education v Azmitia [2014] WADC 85
Engine Protection Equipment Pty Ltd v Miller [2018] WASCA 55
Mokta v Metro Meat International Ltd [2005] WASCA 143
O'Leary v Edith Cowan University (Unreported, CM 108/02, 20 February 2004)
Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60
Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97; (2007) 33 WAR 361

PALMER DCJ:

Introduction

At the hearing of this appeal, I refused leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal and ordered that the Appellant (Mr Francis) pay the costs of the appeal of the Respondent (Publications) to be taxed, if not agreed. I indicated that I would give written reasons for my decision later. These are those reasons.
Mr Francis appeals from a decision of an arbitrator in the Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service (Mr Rutherford (Arbitrator)), made on 21 September 2022 to dismiss Mr Francis's application (Application) for weekly payments of compensation for total incapacity and statutory expenses alleged to be due under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) (the Act).
Before the Arbitrator, Mr Francis contended that he had developed a psychiatric illness during the course of his employment with Publications.
The Application was heard over eight days between 8 December 2020 and 18 December 2020. Both parties were represented by counsel. Eight witnesses gave evidence and were cross-examined, some extensively. A large volume of documents were tendered, including reports from expert medical witnesses who were not required to appear to give evidence. The parties prepared detailed written closing submissions. The Arbitrator reserved his decision. He delivered lengthy written reasons for his decision on 21 September 2022.[1]
[1] Arbitrator's Decision A63791 (Arbitrator's Reasons).
Ultimately, while the Arbitrator considered that Mr Francis developed a psychiatric illness during the course of his employment with Publications, the Arbitrator was not satisfied that Mr Francis had established that the illness was an 'injury' within the definition in s 5(1) of the Act. The Arbitrator therefore concluded that Mr Francis was not entitled to workers' compensation under the Act…

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 Francis v Publications & Exhibitions Pty Ltd 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: [2023] WADC 129
Decision Date: 2 NOVEMBER 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court involved Francis, an employee, and Publications & Exhibitions Pty Ltd, his employer. The dispute centred around an appeal concerning workers' compensation. The employer sought to appeal the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, which had awarded compensation to Francis. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The employer argued that the Commission had made an error in law, which warranted an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the appeal was based on a question of law and, if so, whether the Court should grant leave to appeal. The employer contended that the Commission had misapplied the law in its determination of the compensation payable to Francis. The Court had to consider whether the appeal involved a question of law and, if not, whether there were any grounds for granting leave to appeal.

The Court held that the appeal did not involve a question of law, and thus, the employer was not entitled to leave to appeal. The Court found that the Commission's decision was based on factual findings, which were not subject to appeal unless there was an error in the application of the law. In this case, the Court determined that the Commission had correctly applied the relevant legislation and case law in reaching its decision. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the original decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission.

The Supreme Court's decision resulted in the employer's appeal being dismissed, and the original compensation award to Francis was upheld. The Court did not grant leave to appeal, finding that the appeal did not involve a question of law. The decision underscored the importance of correctly applying the law in workers' compensation matters and reinforced the limited scope of appeals in such cases.

Orders