HUNTLEY -v- INTELLILEARN PTY LTD [2016] WADC 32

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WADC 32
Case No:	APP:84/2015	Heard:	8 FEBRUARY 2016
Coram:	STAVRIANOU DCJ	Delivered:	15/03/16
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	26	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Arbitrator's decision quashed
PDF Version

Parties:	JACQUELINE HUNTLEY INTELLILEARN PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Worker's compensation Appeal from Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service Leave to appeal Whether appeal 'involves a question of law' Employment Whether appellant in more than one employment for the purposes of calculation of Amount B Reasons for decision Whether arbitrator gave adequate reasons for decision
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) s 3, s 5, s 18, s 247, sch 1 cl 7, cl 11, cl 14
Case References:	Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17 BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250 Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (Bond Media Case) [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Planning Commission (WA) [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273 Osland v Secretary, the Department of Justice (No 2) [2010] HCA 24; (2010) 241 CLR 320 Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Velez Pty Ltd v Tudor [2011] WASCA 218 Wilson v Wilson's Tile Works Pty Ltd [1960] HCA 63; (1960) 104 CLR 328 XCO Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1971] HCA 37; (1971) 124 CLR 343

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : HUNTLEY -v- INTELLILEARN PTY LTD [2016] WADC 32 CORAM : STAVRIANOU DCJ HEARD : 8 FEBRUARY 2016 DELIVERED : 15 MARCH 2016 FILE NO/S : APP 84 of 2015 BETWEEN : JACQUELINE HUNTLEY

Appellant

AND

INTELLILEARN PTY LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE (WA)

Coram : ARBITRATOR MENGLER

File No : A 21973 of 2015

Catchwords:

Worker's compensation - Appeal from Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service - Leave to appeal - Whether appeal 'involves a question of law'

Employment - Whether appellant in more than one employment for the purposes of calculation of Amount B

Reasons for decision - Whether arbitrator gave adequate reasons for decision

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) s 3, s 5, s 18, s 247, sch 1 cl 7, cl 11, cl 14

Result:

Appeal allowed

Arbitrator's decision quashed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M J Lourey

Respondent : Mr M J Civitella

Solicitors:

Appellant : Chapmans

Respondent : Mills Oakley

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

Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250
Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (Bond Media Case) [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Planning Commission (WA) [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273
Osland v Secretary, The Department of Justice (No 2) [2010] HCA 24

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 Huntley v Intellilearn Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Huntley v Intellilearn Pty Ltd [2016] WADC 32
Case: [2016] WADC 32
Decision Date: 15 MARCH 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Huntley, appealed against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service, which dismissed his claim for workers' compensation benefits. The dispute involved whether Mr. Huntley was entitled to benefits as a result of an injury he sustained while performing work for multiple employers. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appeal involved a question of law and whether Mr. Huntley was considered to be in more than one employment for the purpose of calculating Amount B, which is a specific component of the compensation payable. Additionally, the court examined whether the arbitrator provided adequate reasons for their decision.

The court found that the appeal involved a question of law, specifically the interpretation of the Workers' Compensation Act. It was held that Mr. Huntley was indeed in more than one employment, as he was working under contracts with multiple employers at the time of his injury. The court found that the arbitrator failed to provide adequate reasons for their decision, leading to the conclusion that the decision was flawed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the arbitrator's decision was quashed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Arbitrator's decision quashed

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.