J R and E G Richards Pty Ltd (t/as J Richards and Sons v Thomsett

The parties to this appeal were J R and E G Richards Pty Ltd (trading as J Richards and Sons) and Thomsett. The dispute concerned an appeal from a decision of a Commissioner of the Compensation Court to a judge of that court. The Commissioner had made findings regarding whether work was being executed within the meaning of section 20 of the relevant Act and who employed the worker. The judge of the Compensation Court had found that the Commissioner had erred in law on both these points and had then proceeded to make his own findings as to who employed the worker.

The primary legal issues before the appellate court were whether the judge of the Compensation Court had erred in law in finding that the Commissioner had made an error of law regarding the execution of work and the employment of the worker. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the primary facts found by the Commissioner necessitated a different finding, applying the principles established in *Hope v Bathurst City Council*. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the judge was correct in holding that the Commissioner had erred in law in his finding of who employed the worker, and if so, whether the judge was entitled to make his own finding on that issue, given that the appeal to him was limited to points of law.

The appellate court reasoned that while the judge was correct to hold that the Commissioner had erred in law in his findings, the judge should not have proceeded to make his own finding as to who employed the worker. The court held that the judge's finding on employment was not the only possible result from the facts and that the appeal to the judge was solely on a point of law. Consequently, the judge should have remitted the matter back to the Compensation Court for a further hearing to determine the issue of employment.

The appeal was upheld in part. The orders of the Compensation Court, save for those allowing the appeal to that court and setting aside the Commissioner's orders, were set aside. The matter was remitted to the Compensation Court to be dealt with according to law. No order was made as to the costs of the appeal, and the costs of the proceedings below were to be determined by the Compensation Court upon its dealing with the matter on remission.