Geoff Barkla v Allianz Australia & Anor Geoff Barkla v Allianz Australia

[2015] HCASL 40

GEOFF BARKLA v ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA & ANOR

GEOFF BARKLA v ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA & ANOR

[2015] HCASL 40
P47/2014
P52/2014

1. On 5 November 2010, the applicant lodged a claim under the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) ("the Act") for compensation for loss arising from psychiatric injuries sustained in the course of his employment with the second respondent.  The second respondent denied liability and the matter was submitted to arbitration.

2. By an interlocutory application dated 5 January 2012, the applicant claimed that he was entitled to summary judgment on the basis that neither the first nor second respondent had issued him the correct notice under s 57A of the Act disputing their liability.  The arbitrator, Registrar Melville, dismissed that application.  The first respondent ultimately accepted liability and the applicant received workers' compensation.

3. Nevertheless, the applicant sought to reargue the issue of the respondents' compliance with s 57A of the Act in new arbitration proceedings, on the basis that new information relevant to Registrar Melville's decision had become available.  This application was dismissed by Arbitrator Nunn.  On 28 August 2014, the District Court of Western Australia (Staude DCJ) refused leave to appeal from the decision of Arbitrator Nunn, as the application was an abuse of process.  The applicant applied for leave to appeal from this order.

4. On 8 October 2014, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Newnes and Murphy JJA) refused an interim application seeking orders for interrogatories, finding that the application was "based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the appellate process".  That decision forms the basis of the special leave application to this Court in P47/2014. 

5. On 10 November 2014, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the appeal, finding that the appeal had no prospect of success:  the primary judge was correct and the issue was res judicata.  That decision forms the basis of the special leave application in P52/2014.

6. The draft notices of appeal for each application for special leave to appeal raise no questions of law that would justify leave being granted.  The decision of the Court of Appeal to refuse to issue interrogatories was clearly correct, as was the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss the applicant's appeal from the decision of Staude DCJ.  An appeal to this Court in respect of each matter has no prospects of success.  Special leave is refused. 

7. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
9 April 2015 P.A. Keane