Issa v CCS Couriers Pty Ltd - [2024] WADC 32

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   ISSA -v- CCS COURIERS PTY LTD [2024] WADC 32
CORAM:   GILLAN DCJ
HEARD:   12 MARCH 2024
DELIVERED          :   Ex tempore
PUBLISHED           :   15 MAY 2024
FILE NO/S:   APP 49 of 2023
BETWEEN:   RAYMOND JOSEPH ISSA
Appellant
AND
CCS COURIERS PTY LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE
Coram:   ARBITRATOR MELVILLE
File Number            :   A115870 & A117476

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Appeal from decision of arbitrator - Order for repayment of weekly payments - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

There will be leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 3.
The appeal will be allowed.
The decision of the arbitrator with respect to s 71 application will be set
aside and the matter remitted to the WorkCover WA Arbitration Service
for a further determination.
The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr J R Clyne
Respondent	:	Mr N F Morrissey & Mr L E M Bayly

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Simon Walters
Respondent	:	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Perth)

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

Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250
D'Orsogna Ltd v Zhang [2019] WADC 73
Leighton Contractors v Withers [2011] WACC DC9-2011
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Al‑Miahi [2001] FCA 744
Moyes v Ensco Australia Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 104
Osgood v Wham [2007] WASCA 178
Suleski v Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd [2018] WASCA 147

GILLAN DCJ:

[This decision was delivered extemporaneously on 12 March 2024 and edited from the transcript.]

These are my reasons ex tempore for deciding the appeal. I reserve the right to edit the reasons for grammatical errors in the event that it is necessary to do so in order for these reasons to be formally published.
This appeal arises from a decision of Arbitrator Melville made 5 September 2023 after arbitration. The appeal is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), which I will refer to as the Act.
The appeal is from the decision pursuant to s 71 of the Act to require repayment of weekly workers' compensation payments made in the period between 2 September 2022 and 5 September 2023, the date of the decision.

Background

It is convenient to set out a little background of relevant facts and findings by the arbitrator, which are uncontested, for the purposes of the appeal. On 20 November 2018 the appellant who is a worker for the purposes of the Act, was injured in a road traffic accident while he was employed as a courier driver by the respondent.
The appellant lodged a workers' compensation claim form dated 26 November 2018, liability was accepted pursuant to s 57(3)(a) of the Act and weekly…

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 Issa v CCS Couriers 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: [2024] WADC 32
Decision Date: 15 MAY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerns a dispute between Issa, an employee, and CCS Couriers Pty Ltd, his employer, regarding workers' compensation payments. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Issa, who suffered a work-related injury, sought further compensation from his employer, leading to an arbitration process. The primary issue before the court was whether the arbitrator's decision to order the repayment of certain weekly compensation payments to CCS Couriers Pty Ltd was justified. The court needed to determine the correctness of the arbitrator's decision based on the facts and applicable legal principles.

The court examined the specific circumstances of the case to determine if the arbitrator had correctly interpreted the relevant workers' compensation laws. The key legal issue was whether the employer had a legitimate basis to request the repayment of the weekly payments. The court considered the employer's entitlement to such a repayment in light of the statutory provisions governing workers' compensation and the factual background of the case. The analysis hinged on whether the employer had acted within its rights when requesting the repayment and whether the arbitrator's decision was supported by the evidence presented.

The court found that the arbitrator had correctly ordered the repayment of the weekly payments to the employer. The decision was based on a thorough examination of the statutory framework and the particular facts of the case. The court held that the employer had acted lawfully in requesting the repayment, and the arbitrator's decision was justified. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the order for repayment was upheld. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the specific provisions of the workers' compensation legislation and the need for arbitrators to apply these provisions accurately in their decisions.

Orders