Legal Research
Cases
Green v Mineral Resources

Green v Mineral Resources

Case [2025] WADC 33 2 July 2025

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   GREEN -v- MINERAL RESOURCES [2025] WADC 33
CORAM:   CORMANN DCJ
HEARD:   17 APRIL 2025
DELIVERED          :   2 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   APP 66 of 2024
BETWEEN:   MARK NORTON GREEN
Appellant
AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   WORKERS' COMPENSATON ARBITRATION SERVICE
Coram:   ARBITRATOR GUSTAVINO
File Number            :   A132388

Catchwords:

Rule 46 list of documents - Orders to produce medical records - Appeal from interlocutory decision of arbitrator - Relevant documents - Duty of disclosure - Causation of injury - No error of law in orders for production - Appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)
Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023 (WA)
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Arbitration Rules 2011 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal denied
Arbitrator's decision affirmed and appeal dismissed
Appellant to pay respondent's costs of appeal

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Mr J B Salkilld-Campbell

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Barry Nilsson Lawyers (WA)

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

Arvind Pty Ltd v Lamers [2020] WASCA 47
Blakers v South Metropolitan Health Service [2023] WADC 143
Johnson v Denwest Nominees Pty Ltd t/as Cunderdin Roadhouse [2017] WASCA 200
Marks v Coles Supermarkets [2021] WASCA 176
NRW Contracting Pty Ltd v Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 107
Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60
RLA Morgans v Vrebac [2022] WADC 86
Singh v Friedman [2013] WASC 78
Youlden Enterprises Pty Ltd v Health Solutions (WA) Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 161
Zaghloul v Woodside Energy Ltd [2019] WASCA 187

CORMANN DCJ:

Introduction

This is an appeal from an interlocutory decision of an arbitrator in the Workers Compensation Arbitration Service (WCAS) delivered on 2 August 2024. The arbitrator made orders requiring the appellant to produce a list of documents and for production by several medical clinics of various of the appellant's medical records.
The substantive proceeding involves the appellant's application for a determination of liability, weekly payments for partial incapacity, and statutory expenses (including medical) relating to an injury alleged to have been sustained to his right shoulder in a workplace accident on 7 December 2023.
In the notice of appeal filed on 28 August 2024, the appellant identified three 'questions of law' alleged to arise, and five 'grounds' of appeal alleging error by the arbitrator. Despite ample opportunity and orders requiring the same, the appellant thereafter failed to file any further materials nor any written submissions in support of his appeal. On 3 April 2025, the respondent filed written submissions addressing, to the extent possible, the merits of the grounds set out in the notice.
At the hearing on 17 April 2025, neither party applied for adjournment; the respondent was content for the court to hear orally from the appellant. The appellant made clear he had no further written materials that he wished to put before the court. The appeal hearing thereafter proceeded before me. At 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.

Continue reading Green v Mineral Resources

Details

AGLC: Green v Mineral Resources [2025] WADC 33
Case: [2025] WADC 33
Decision Date: 2 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Green v Mineral Resources involved the plaintiff, Green, and the defendant, Mineral Resources, who were engaged in a dispute over the production of medical records as part of a claim for workers' compensation. The case was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of Western Australia, and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the orders made by the arbitrator, requiring the production of certain medical records, were correct and whether there was any error of law in the decision to compel the production of these records.

The legal issues that the court was required to address included the interpretation of the rules regarding the disclosure of relevant documents and the scope of the duty of disclosure in the context of workers' compensation claims. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the medical records in question were indeed relevant and necessary for the determination of the causation of Green's injury. The court also had to assess whether the orders for production were justified under the circumstances and whether there was any procedural unfairness in the process.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia found that there was no error of law in the arbitrator's decision to order the production of the medical records. The court held that the records were relevant to the issue of causation and were necessary for a fair determination of the claim. The court emphasised the importance of full disclosure in workers' compensation claims and confirmed that the duty of disclosure extended to all documents that could have a bearing on the resolution of the matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders for the production of the medical records were upheld.

Orders