GEORGE -v- QUBE PORTS PTY LTD [2017] WADC 97

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2017] WADC 97
Case No:	APP:21/2017	Heard:	19 JULY 2017
Coram:	STEVENSON DCJ	Delivered:	2/08/17
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	32	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	OWEN GEORGE QUBE PORTS PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Appeal Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 Leave to appeal Question of law Adequacy of reasons Failure to take into account relevant considerations Standard of proof Findings of fact without evidence Failure to make relevant findings Whether appellant suffered permanent total incapacity for work
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981
Case References:	Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17 Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 Hayter v HWE Mining Pty Ltd [2017] WADC 26 Massih v Electricity Networks Corporation t/as Western Power [2016] WADC 146 Minister for Education v Shire of Northam [2016] WADC 42 Nankivell v Insurance Commission of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 143 Paradis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board (2007) 33 WAR 361 R v Burdett (1820) 4 B & Ald 95; (1820) 106 ER 873 Velez Pty Ltd v Tudor [2011] WASCA 218

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : GEORGE -v- QUBE PORTS PTY LTD [2017] WADC 97 CORAM : STEVENSON DCJ HEARD : 19 JULY 2017 DELIVERED : 2 AUGUST 2017 FILE NO/S : APP 21 of 2017 BETWEEN : OWEN GEORGE

Appellant

AND

QUBE PORTS PTY LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE (WA)

Coram : ARBITRATOR NUNN

File No : A 33352 of 2016

Catchwords:

Appeal - Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 - Leave to appeal - Question of law - Adequacy of reasons - Failure to take into account relevant considerations - Standard of proof - Findings of fact without evidence - Failure to make relevant findings - Whether appellant suffered permanent total incapacity for work

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr H Evans-Mete

Respondent : Mr J J Sheldrick

Solicitors:

Appellant : Evans Injury Lawyers

Respondent : Hall & Wilcox

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

Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17
Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
Hayter v HWE Mining Pty Ltd [2017] WADC 26
Massih v Electricity Networks Corporation t/as Western Power [2016] WADC 146
Minister for Education v Shire of Northam [2016] WADC 42
Nankivell v Insurance Commission of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 143
Paradis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board (2007) 33 WAR 361
R v Burdett (1820) 4 B & Ald 95; (1820) 106 ER 873
Velez Pty Ltd v Tudor [2011] WASCA 218

STEVENSON DCJ

Introduction

1 This…

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 George v Qube Ports 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: [2017] WADC 97
Decision Date: 2 AUGUST 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of George v Qube Ports Pty Ltd involved an appeal by the appellant, George, against a decision of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Commission of Queensland. The dispute centred on the question of whether the appellant had suffered permanent total incapacity for work due to injuries sustained in an incident at work. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the appeal judge provided adequate reasons for their decision, whether relevant considerations were taken into account, and whether the standard of proof was correctly applied. Additionally, the court examined whether the appeal judge made findings of fact without sufficient evidence and whether relevant findings were omitted.

In its judgment, the court held that the appeal judge failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision, particularly in relation to the assessment of the appellant's capacity to work. The court found that the judge did not take into account all relevant considerations and made findings of fact without proper evidence. However, despite these shortcomings, the court concluded that the error did not affect the outcome of the case, and the findings on the appellant's capacity to work were correctly made. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

The orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal itself. The court's decision underscored the importance of thorough and reasoned decision-making in workers' compensation cases, while also highlighting the need for findings to be supported by proper evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

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.