LIU -v- INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2007] WASCA 9

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASCA 9
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:124/2006	Heard:	8 DECEMBER 2006
Coram:	PULLIN JA	Delivered:	9/01/07
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ZHEN LIU INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Workers' compensation Review officer refused to make costs order under s 84ZL(1) Appeal dismissed by Compensation Magistrate Right of appeal under s84ZN(2) Whether grounds of appeal involve question of law Points not taken below Whether allowed to be raised on appeal No point of principle calling for leave Appeal dismissed
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 84ZL(1), s 84ZW, s 84ZN(2)
Case References:	Highmoon Pty Ltd v City of Fremantle [2006] WASCA 21 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Mostert v Durban Roodepoort Deep Ltd [2004] WASCA 309 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Gardner v Caporn [2005] WASCA 153 Steele v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 459 Van Dongen v Masters Dairy [2001] WASCA 1

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : LIU -v- INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2007] WASCA 9 CORAM : PULLIN JA HEARD : 8 DECEMBER 2006 DELIVERED : 10 JANUARY 2007 FILE NO/S : CACV 124 of 2006 BETWEEN : ZHEN LIU

Appellant

AND

INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COMPENSATION MAGISTRATES' COURT

Coram : MS P M HOGAN CM

File No : CM 1 of 2006

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Review officer refused to make costs order under s 84ZL(1) - Appeal dismissed by Compensation Magistrate - Right of appeal under s84ZN(2) - Whether grounds of appeal involve question of law - Points not taken below - Whether allowed to be raised on appeal - No point of principle calling for leave - Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 84ZL(1), s 84ZW, s 84ZN(2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr G R Hancy

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Dibbs Abbott Stillman

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

Highmoon Pty Ltd v City of Fremantle [2006] WASCA 21
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Mostert v Durban Roodepoort Deep Ltd [2004] WASCA 309

Case(s) also cited:

Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Gardner v Caporn [2005] WASCA 153
Steele v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 459
Van Dongen v Masters Dairy [2001] WASCA 1

(Page 3)

1 PULLIN JA: There are two applications before the Court. The first is an application by the appellant for leave to appeal pursuant to the repealed s 84ZW of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA). The section was repealed by s 67 of the

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 Liu v Inghams Enterprises 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: [2007] WASCA 9
Decision Date: 10 JANUARY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Liu v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd was heard before the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The appellant, Liu, sought to appeal a decision of a Compensation Magistrate who had dismissed his claim for costs against the respondent, Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd, under section 84ZL(1) of the Workers Compensation Act. The dispute arose from an incident where Liu sustained a workplace injury, and subsequently, he applied for a review of a decision by a review officer who had refused to make a costs order in his favour. The Compensation Magistrate upheld the review officer's decision, leading Liu to lodge an appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Liu could appeal the Compensation Magistrate's decision based on points that were not raised during the proceedings before the Compensation Magistrate. Additionally, the court had to determine if any of these points constituted a question of law or a point of principle that could justify leave to appeal under section 84ZN(2) of the Workers Compensation Act. The court considered whether it was permissible for Liu to raise new arguments on appeal that were not previously taken before the Compensation Magistrate.

In its reasoning, the court noted that Liu's appeal was based on points that were not taken before the Compensation Magistrate. The court held that the grounds of appeal did not involve a question of law or a point of principle that warranted leave to appeal. The court emphasised that an appeal should not be used to raise new arguments that could have been, but were not, presented at the initial hearing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as Liu had not demonstrated any grounds for leave to appeal under the relevant statutory provisions. The court concluded that the Compensation Magistrate's decision was correct, and Liu's appeal was without merit.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.