LIEBHERR-AUSTRALIA PTY LTD -v- BLOOMFIELD [2006] WASCA 128

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASCA 128
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:77/2005	Heard:	21 MARCH 2006
Coram:	STEYTLER P MCLURE JA PULLIN JA	Delivered:	29/06/06
No of pages:	20	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LIEBHERR-AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ERIC WAYNE BLOOMFIELD WORKCOVER WA
Catchwords:	Workers' compensation Whether costs order of a Registrar a nullity because of legislative change Whether the Registrar's order of no effect when subject to a de novo appeal
Legislation:	District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 79(1)(b), s 88(2)(g) District Court Rules 1996 (WA), O 6 r 2, O 6 r 6, O 6 r 11 Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 37 Workers' Compensation (Common Law Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 3(a), s 7 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 93D Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Amendment Act 1999 (WA), s 32
Case References:	Briggs v Glentham Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 339 Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616 Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 Dossett v TKJ Nominees Pty Ltd (2003) 218 CLR 1 Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84 Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26 Hunt v Knabe (No 2) (1992) 8 WAR 96 Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd (1997) 191 CLR 85 Thompson v His Honour Judge Byrne (1999) 196 CLR 141 Watson v Hanimex Colour Services Pty Ltd (1992) 8 NSWCCR 190 Wentworth v Rogers [2004] NSWCA 401 Baker v Australian Asbestos Insulations Pty Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 280 Barminco Investments Pty Ltd v O'Brien [2006] WASCA 88 Bird v The Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 1 Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 Collector of Customs v AgfaGevaert Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 389 Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297 Fisher v Hebburn Ltd (1960) 105 CLR 188 Gardner Steel Ltd v Sheffield Brothers [1978] 3 All ER 399 Geraldton Building Co Pty Ltd v May (1977) 136 CLR 379 Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd (2002) 27 WAR 91 Kuligowski v Metrobus (2002) 26 WAR 137 MacCarron v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (2001) 23 WAR 355 Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261 Murcia & Associates v Grey (2001) 25 WAR 209 Proust v Blake (1989) 17 NSWLR 267 The Administration of the Territory of Papua New Guinea v Daera Guba (1973) 130 CLR 353 Transfield Pty Ltd v Rawstron [2005] WASCA 78

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : LIEBHERR-AUSTRALIA PTY LTD -v- BLOOMFIELD [2006] WASCA 128 CORAM : STEYTLER P

MCLURE JA

PULLIN JA

HEARD : 21 MARCH 2006 DELIVERED : 29 JUNE 2006 FILE NO/S : CACV 77 of 2005 BETWEEN : LIEBHERR-AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Appellant

AND

ERIC WAYNE BLOOMFIELD

Respondent

ON…

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 Liebherr-Australia Pty Ltd v Bloomfield 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: [2006] WASCA 128
Decision Date: 29 JUNE 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Liebherr-Australia Pty Ltd v Bloomfield was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the validity of a costs order made by a Registrar under workers' compensation legislation, and whether this order was rendered null and void due to subsequent legislative changes. The appellant, Liebherr-Australia, argued that the Registrar's costs order was invalid because the relevant legislation had been amended while the appeal was pending. The respondent, Bloomfield, contested this assertion, arguing that the costs order should stand.

The court was required to decide whether the Registrar's costs order could be deemed a nullity due to legislative changes and if this order was of no effect when subject to a de novo appeal. Specifically, the court needed to interpret the legislative amendments and their impact on the pending appeal, as well as determine the effect of the Registrar's order in light of these amendments.

The court concluded that the Registrar's costs order was not rendered null and void by the legislative changes, and that the order remained in effect pending the outcome of the appeal. The court found that the appeal should proceed de novo, meaning the appeal was to be heard as if no previous decision had been made. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the Registrar's order was not automatically voided by the legislative changes and that the appeal process should continue as per the statutory provisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.