Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd v Smith - [2000] WASCA 366

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: GRIFFIN COAL MINING CO PTY LTD -v- SMITH [2000] WASCA 366

CORAM: KENNEDY J
MURRAY J
PARKER J

HEARD: 15 JUNE 2000

DELIVERED : 22 NOVEMBER 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 1515 of 2000

BETWEEN: GRIFFIN COAL MINING CO PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
EDWARD CHARLES SMITH
Respondent

Catchwords:

Leave to appeal - Original hearing in absence of applicant - Procedural irregularities as to notice of hearing - Whether denial of procedural fairness - Whether decision a nullity

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Amendment Act 1999, s 32(7)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr M L Greenland
Respondent: Mr A S Stavrianou

Solicitors:

Applicant: Greenland Brooksby
Respondent: Max Owens & Co

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

Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 571
Craig v Kanssen (1943) 1 KB 256
Macksville and District Hospital v Mayze (1987) 10 NSWLR 708
Norman v Norman (1992) 6 WAR 372
Palamara v City of Perth (1996) 16 WAR 235
Taylor v Taylor (1979) 143 CLR 1
The State of Western Australia & Anor v Bond Corporation Holding Ltd & Ors (1991) 5 WAR 40
Twist v Randwick Municipal Council (1976) 136 CLR 106
Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285

Case(s) also cited:

Hughes v Gales (1995) 14 WAR 434

KENNEDY J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Parker J. For those reasons I would refuse the applicant leave to appeal.
MURRAY J: I have had the considerable advantage of perusing in draft the reasons to be published by Parker J. I have nothing to add. I agree that leave to appeal should be refused.
PARKER J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of his Honour Judge Williams delivered in the District Court at Bunbury on 20 April 2000 by which an appeal from a Registrar of the District Court was dismissed.
In these reasons it will be more convenient to refer to the applicant as the defendant and to the respondent as the plaintiff.
The decision of the Registrar was that the plaintiff should have leave to commence proceedings against the defendant seeking damages at common law in respect of personal injuries which the plaintiff claims to have suffered in the course of employment with the applicant.
Leave of the District Court for the commencement of proceedings was required by virtue of s 93D of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 ("the Act") as it was until 5 October 1999. On that date the Royal Assent was given to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Amendment Act 1999 ("the 1999 Amendment") which came into force immediately. Section 93D was repealed and a new and different scheme substituted. It is the effect of s 32(7) of the 1999 Amendment that the newly enacted scheme did not affect the awarding of damages in proceedings commenced before 5 October 1999 "or…

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 Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd v Smith

Details

AGLC: Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd v Smith [2000] WASCA 366
Case: [2000] WASCA 366
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd v Smith involved the applicant, Griffin Coal Mining Co, challenging the decision of the respondent, Smith, to deny the applicant's application for leave to appeal. The matter was originally heard in the absence of Griffin Coal Mining Co due to alleged procedural irregularities concerning the notice of the hearing. The primary dispute centred on whether the denial of procedural fairness rendered the decision a nullity.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the denial of procedural fairness, resulting from the alleged procedural irregularities, invalidated the decision of the respondent. Specifically, the court had to determine if the failure to provide adequate notice to the applicant constituted a breach of procedural fairness, and if so, whether this breach rendered the decision a nullity. The court also needed to assess the impact of the procedural irregularities on the fairness of the hearing and the ultimate decision.

The court examined the principles of procedural fairness and the requirements for adequate notice in administrative law. It found that procedural fairness is a fundamental requirement in decision-making processes, ensuring that all parties have an opportunity to present their case. The court determined that the procedural irregularities in this case did indeed breach the principles of procedural fairness. As a result, the court concluded that the decision made under these circumstances was a nullity due to the significant procedural breach. Consequently, the denial of leave to appeal was set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration with proper notice to the applicant.

In summary, the court found that the denial of procedural fairness due to procedural irregularities rendered the decision a nullity. The decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration with proper notice to the applicant.

Orders