Greenaway v Prestige Helicopters Pty Ltd - [2020] WADC 159

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   GREENAWAY -v- PRESTIGE HELICOPTERS PTY LTD [2020] WADC 159
CORAM:   FLYNN DCJ
HEARD:   25 SEPTEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   11 DECEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   APP 9 of 2020
BETWEEN:   SHARYN GREENAWAY
Appellant
AND
PRESTIGE HELICOPTERS PTY LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE (WA)
Coram:   ARBITRATOR RUTHERFORD
File Number            :   A39036

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Leave to appeal - Whether inferences drawn by arbitrator were reasonably open - Adequacy of reasons - Turns on own facts - Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) interaction of s 10A 'working director' with s 175 'deemed employers'

Legislation:

Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), pt III, div 2
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 3, s 3(a), s 4, s 4(2)(a), s 5, s 7, s 7(1), s 8, s 9, s 10A, s 11A(2), s 14(2a), s 18, s 72E, s 160, s 160A, s 160(2a), s 160(3), s 175, s 213(4), s 247(5), s 247(6), s 247(7)

Result:

Leave to appeal is refused except in relation to ground of appeal number 5 of the Amended Appeal Notice.
Appeal dismissed.

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr G Droppert SC
Respondent	:	Mr D M G Burton

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	WA Legal Pty Ltd
Respondent	:	McCabe Curwood

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

AK v The State of Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250
Cape Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Burridge [2019] WADC 105
CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd v Armet [2020] WADC 85
Greenaway v Prestige Helicopters Pty Ltd (Unreported, Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service, A39036, 10 January 2020)
Hope v Bathurst City Council [1980] HCA 16
Lederberger v Mediterranean Olives Financial Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 262
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Panizza (Unreported, WASC, Library No 950562, 19 October 1995)
Luckins (Receiver & Manager of Australian Trailways Pty Ltd) v Highway Motel (Carnarvon) Pty Ltd [1975] HCA 50
Mohammadi v Bethune [2018] WASCA 98
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273
Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60
Thiel v Federal Commission of Taxation (1990) 171 CLR 338
Velez Pty Ltd v Tudor [2011] WASCA 218

FLYNN DCJ:

Mr Timothy Greenaway died when the crop dusting aircraft that he was piloting crashed on 14 September 2010. He is survived by his wife, the appellant, and their two children. The Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) (the Act) provides that if 'an injury to a worker occurs and the worker dies, the employer is liable to pay compensation' in accordance with the Act.[1] The Act also provides that the dependent family of a deceased worker, including a partner and children, are entitled to compensation as prescribed and the claim is to be made on the worker's employer.[2] The appellant and the children made a claim for compensation…

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 Greenaway v Prestige Helicopters 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: [2020] WADC 159
Decision Date: 11 DECEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Greenaway v Prestige Helicopters Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the appellant, Greenaway, and the respondent, Prestige Helicopters Pty Ltd, concerning the adequacy of reasons provided by the arbitrator for the conclusions reached regarding Greenaway's eligibility for workers' compensation. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The crux of the dispute was whether the arbitrator's findings were reasonably open based on the evidence presented and if the reasons provided were sufficient.

The court was tasked with determining whether the arbitrator's conclusions were supported by the evidence and whether the reasons given were adequate. This involved assessing the interaction between section 10A, which defines a 'working director', and section 175, which defines 'deemed employers', under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA). The court had to examine if the statutory interaction was properly applied and if the inferences drawn by the arbitrator were justified.

The court found that the arbitrator's conclusions were reasonably open on the evidence, and the reasons provided were adequate. The court concluded that the statutory interaction was correctly applied, and the inferences drawn were justified. The reasoning of the arbitrator was found to be sound, and the court upheld the decision of the arbitrator, dismissing the appeal. The decision underscored the importance of the arbitrator's reasoning aligning with the statutory framework and the evidence presented.

Orders