Ilea v Return to Work Corporation of South Australia

[2020] SASC 85

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil)

ILEA v RETURN TO WORK CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

[2020] SASC 85

Judgment of The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis

22 May 2020

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION - DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS - APPEALS, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATED CASES - RIGHT OF APPEAL

Application brought by Mr Ilea for permission to appeal against a decision of the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal (the Full Bench and the Tribunal respectively).

The Full Bench dismissed Mr Ilea’s appeal from a decision of a Deputy President upholding a determination of the Return to Work Corporation of South Australia that Mr Ilea’s entitlement to income support ceased on 28 June 2017. A determination had been made in November 2012 that Mr Ilea had ‘nil entitlement to a lump sum payment’ because his whole of person impairment was assessed at 0 per cent.

Held, refusing permission to appeal:

1.   The application raises no question of general or public importance.

2.   The application is an attempt to relitigate the decision that he has ‘nil entitlement’ many years after it was made.

Ilea v Return to Work SA [2020] SAET 10; Ilea v Return to Work SA [2019] SAET 4, considered.

ILEA v RETURN TO WORK CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
[2020] SASC 85

Civil

1. KOURAKIS CJ:    This is an application brought by Mr Ilea for permission to appeal to the Full Court from a decision of the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal (the Full Bench and the Tribunal respectively) dated 28 January 2020.[1]

   [1]    Ilea v Return to Work SA [2020] SAET 10.

2. The Full Bench dismissed Mr Ilea’s appeal from a decision of a Deputy President of the Tribunal upholding a determination of the Return to Work Corporation of South Australia that Mr Ilea’s entitlement to income support ceased on 28 June 2017.[2]

   [2]    Ilea v Return to Work SA [2019] SAET 4.

3. Mr Ilea lodged an application for review of that determination.  Mr Ilea contended that he continued to have an entitlement to income support because he suffered a whole person impairment of more than 30 per cent and was, therefore, seriously injured.  However, a determination had been made in November 2012 that Mr Ilea had a ‘nil entitlement to a lump sum payment’ because his whole of person impairment was assessed at 0 per cent.  Mr Ilea lodged a Notice of Dispute with respect to that determination but it was subsequently struck out for want of prosecution. 

4. A Deputy President of the Tribunal struck out Mr Ilea’s application.

5. On his appeal against the decision of the Deputy President, before the Full Bench, Mr Ilea complained about the circumstances in which his examination by a medical practitioner, on which the determination that he had ‘nil entitlement’ was based, was arranged and undertaken. 

6. The Full Bench dismissed Mr Ilea’s appeal against the decision of the Deputy President. The Full Bench held that the Deputy President had arrived at the correct decision on the material before him and that no error of law had been demonstrated.

7. Mr Ilea’s application for permission to appeal to this Court raises no question of general or public importance.  Mr Ilea’s application is an attempt to relitigate the decision that he has ‘nil entitlement’ many years after it was made.

8. The application has no merit. Permission to appeal is refused.