Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Jaffarie v Quality Castings Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 88 Hearing dates: 28 March 2018 Date of orders: 27 April 2018 Decision date: 27 April 2018 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
White JA at [58]Decision: 1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs.Catchwords: WORKERS COMPENSATION – claim for lump sum compensation – alleged injury in course of employment to both lumbar and thoracic spine – arbitrator determined that appellant injured lumbar spine but not thoracic spine – worker’s appeal to Workers Compensation Commission dismissed – whether findings open to arbitrator – whether arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine existence of injury to thoracic spine – whether arbitrator’s decision unreasonable – whether other errors of law made out – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Constitution, ss 76, 77, 109
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 30
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 78B
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 4, 33, 59A, 60, 65, 66, 151H, Schedule 6 Part 19H cll 1, 3
Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2011 (NSW), Part 17
Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Regulation 2010 (NSW), Schedule 8 cl 17A
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 105, 293, 294, 319, 321, 326, 327, 328, 350, 352, 353Cases Cited: Bindah v Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 264
Chanaa v Zarour [2011] NSWCA 199
Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280
Hearn v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125; [2008] HCA 36
Jaffarie v Quality Castings Pty Ltd [2014] NSWWCCPD 79
Jaffarie v Quality Castings Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 335
Jaffarie v Quality Castings Pty Ltd [2017] NSWWCCPD 2
Kilic v Kmart Australia Ltd [2013] NSWWCCPD 37
Peric v Chul Lee Hyuang Ho Shin Jon Lee & Ors [2009] NSWWCCPD 47
Sabanayagam v St George Bank Ltd [2016] NSWCA 145
Smits v Roach (2006) 227 CLR 423; [2006] HCA 36
Zanardo & Rodriguez Sales & Services Pty Ltd v Tolevski [2013] NSWCA 449; (2013) 12 DDCR 515Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sayed Akbar Jaffarie (Appellant)
Quality Castings Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Appellant in person
I D Roberts SC, J Malouf (First Respondent)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (First Respondent)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second Respondent, submitting)
File Number(s): 2017/00092508 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Workers Compensation Commission
- Citation:
- Jaffarie v Quality Castings Pty Ltd [2017] NSWWCCPD 2
- Date of Decision:
- 28 February 2017
- Before:
- Acting President Michael Snell
- File Number(s):
- A3 and A4 10946/12
Judgment
-
MACFARLAN JA: I agree with the judgments of Leeming and White JJA.
-
LEEMING JA: By his amended notice of appeal dated 3 July 2017, Mr Sayed Akbar Jaffarie appeals pursuant to s 353 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Jaffarie v Quality Castings 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2018] NSWCA 88
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Mr. Jaffarie, brought a claim for lump sum compensation under workers' compensation legislation, alleging injury to both his lumbar and thoracic spine sustained in the course of his employment with Quality Castings Pty Ltd. An arbitrator found that the appellant had suffered an injury to his lumbar spine but not to his thoracic spine. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the Workers Compensation Commission was dismissed.
The appeal to the Court of Appeal concerned several legal issues. These included whether the arbitrator's findings regarding the appellant's injuries were open to them, whether the arbitrator possessed the jurisdiction to determine the existence of an injury to the thoracic spine, and whether the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable or otherwise vitiated by errors of law.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judges found that the arbitrator's findings were open to them on the evidence presented. They also concluded that the arbitrator had the necessary jurisdiction to determine the extent of the appellant's injuries, including the absence of injury to the thoracic spine. The court found no basis to conclude that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable or that any other errors of law had been made.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
The appeal to the Court of Appeal concerned several legal issues. These included whether the arbitrator's findings regarding the appellant's injuries were open to them, whether the arbitrator possessed the jurisdiction to determine the existence of an injury to the thoracic spine, and whether the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable or otherwise vitiated by errors of law.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judges found that the arbitrator's findings were open to them on the evidence presented. They also concluded that the arbitrator had the necessary jurisdiction to determine the extent of the appellant's injuries, including the absence of injury to the thoracic spine. The court found no basis to conclude that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable or that any other errors of law had been made.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs.
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.