John Patrick Ettridge v WorkCover Corporation - [2013] HCASL 61

JOHN PATRICK ETTRIDGE
v
WORKCOVER CORPORATION
[2013] HCASL 61
A1/2013

The applicant applied for compensation from the respondent for an injury, which was said to have been occasioned in the course of his employment with a company of which he was the sole director. His claim was accepted and he received weekly payments of compensation. He disputed the amount of those payments. The dispute came before Deputy President Judge Farrell in the Workers Compensation Tribunal of South Australia ("the Tribunal"). She found that the applicant was not a "worker" for the purposes of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) ("the Act").
The applicant appealed to the Full Bench of the Tribunal. It upheld Deputy President Judge Farrell's finding that the applicant was not a worker and her conclusion that the respondent's earlier acceptance of his claim did not in the face of s 106A of the Act estop it from denying his status as a worker. The appeal was allowed in part and the proceeding remitted for consideration of alternative ways in which the applicant's claim founded in estoppel was put.
The applicant sought to appeal against the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. He required the permission of a judge of the Court to do so[1]. Stanley J refused permission, holding that none of the proposed grounds of appeal were reasonably arguable. The Full Court refused leave to appeal from Stanley J's decision.
[1]Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA), s 86A(2a).
The applicant applies for special leave to appeal. The documents filed in support of the application are discursive and, in parts, unintelligible. There is no reason to doubt the conclusion of the Full Court. If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospect of success.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
8 May 2013 S.J. Gageler

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 John Patrick Ettridge v WorkCover Corporation 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: [2013] HCASL 61
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, John Patrick Ettridge sought compensation from the WorkCover Corporation for an injury sustained during his employment as the sole director of a company. His claim was initially accepted, and he received weekly compensation payments. However, Ettridge disputed the amount of those payments, leading to a dispute over his eligibility for compensation. The matter was heard by Deputy President Judge Farrell in the Workers Compensation Tribunal of South Australia. The Tribunal determined that Ettridge did not qualify as a "worker" under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA), and his appeal to the Full Bench of the Tribunal was subsequently dismissed.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) and whether Ettridge's status as the sole director of a company qualified him as a "worker" under the Act. The Full Bench of the Tribunal found that Ettridge was not a "worker" and that the WorkCover Corporation's acceptance of his claim did not estop it from denying his status as a worker. The applicant then sought to appeal the decision of the Full Bench to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, but his application for special leave to appeal was denied by Stanley J and subsequently by the Full Court.

In dismissing the application for special leave to appeal, the court noted that the grounds for appeal were not reasonably arguable and that granting special leave would not result in a successful appeal. The court found no reason to doubt the conclusions reached by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The application was ultimately dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to prepare a formal order dismissing the application.

Orders