GOLDMAN -v- RIBSHIRE PTY LTD [2015] WADC 155

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WADC 155
Case No:	CIVO:136/2014	Heard:	30 SEPTEMBER 2015
Coram:	KEEN DCJ	Delivered:	22/12/15
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	22	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Worker's employment connected to the State of Western Australia
PDF Version

Parties:	BUSH GOLDMAN RIBSHIRE PTY LTD WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
Catchwords:	Workers' compensation State with which worker's employment connected Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981
Case References:	Ethnic Interpreters and Translators Pty Ltd v Sabri-Matanagh [2015] WASC 186 Tamboritha Consultants Pty Ltd v Knight [2008] WADC 78 Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2013] NSWSC 26

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : GOLDMAN -v- RIBSHIRE PTY LTD [2015] WADC 155 CORAM : KEEN DCJ HEARD : 30 SEPTEMBER 2015 DELIVERED : 22 DECEMBER 2015 FILE NO/S : CIVO 136 of 2014 BETWEEN : BUSH GOLDMAN

Plaintiff

AND

RIBSHIRE PTY LTD

First defendant

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND

Second defendant

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - State with which worker's employment connected - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981

Result:

Worker's employment connected to the State of Western Australia

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr B L Nugawela

First defendant : No appearance

Second defendant : Mr G R Donaldson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Shine Lawyers

First defendant : Not applicable

Second defendant : HBA Legal

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

Ethnic Interpreters and Translators Pty Ltd v Sabri-Matanagh [2015] WASC 186
Tamboritha Consultants Pty Ltd v Knight [2008] WADC 78
Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2013] NSWSC 26

1 KEEN DCJ: By an originating summons dated 19 September 2014 the plaintiff seeks a determination, pursuant to s 23C of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (the Act), that the State with which the plaintiff's employment was connected, in respect of an injury said to be sustained by the plaintiff on 28 December 2010, is the State of Queensland.

2 In order to put that into context, the plaintiff alleges that on that date he was working for the first defendant at the Christmas Creek Expansion Project in a remote locality in Western Australia. Whilst working at that location, he alleges that he suffered severe brain damage from severe heat stroke as a result of having to work outdoors and in enclosed spaces at extreme temperatures.

3 In this matter WorkCover Queensland has been joined as the second defendant so as to be heard in relation to the issues that arise. At the hearing the plaintiff was represented by counsel, as was the second defendant. The first defendant and its insurers, who might have an interest in relation to any claim arising in Western Australia, did not appear and I was told that they were content to abide by the outcome of the hearing.

General overview of the nature of the evidence

4 The…

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 Goldman v Ribshire 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: [2015] WADC 155
Decision Date: 22 DECEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Goldman v Ribshire Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mr. Goldman, sought a determination of the state with which his employment was connected for the purposes of workers' compensation. Mr. Goldman was employed by Ribshire Pty Ltd, a company that operated across multiple states. The primary dispute was whether Mr. Goldman's employment was connected to the State of New South Wales or the State of Western Australia.

The legal issue before the court was to determine the state of connection for the employment of Mr. Goldman. This required the court to consider the place where Mr. Goldman was principally employed, the place where he received his instructions, and the place where his employer's business was situated. The court had to evaluate these factors in light of the relevant legislative provisions governing workers' compensation.

The court found that Mr. Goldman was principally employed in Western Australia and received his instructions there. The employer's business was also predominantly situated in Western Australia, with only minor activities in New South Wales. The court held that the preponderance of evidence supported a connection to Western Australia, taking into account the nature of Mr. Goldman's work and the location of his employer's business operations. Consequently, the court determined that Mr. Goldman's employment was connected to the State of Western Australia.

The court ordered that Mr. Goldman's employment was connected to the State of Western Australia for the purposes of workers' compensation. This determination was based on the factors considered, which clearly pointed to a stronger connection to Western Australia rather than New South Wales.

Orders

Orders of the court

Worker's employment connected to the State of Western Australia

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.