Ljubicic v Akora Holdings Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
STATUS: Decision confirmed on Appeal: Akora Holdings Pty Ltd v Ljubicic [2008] NSWCA 339
CITATION: Ljubicic v Akora Holdings Pty Ltd [2007] NSWWCCPD 160
APPELLANT: Franko Ljubicic
RESPONDENT: Akora Holdings Pty Ltd
INSURER: QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd
FILE NUMBER: WCC16544-04
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 12 February 2007
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 19 July 2007
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Application for an extension of time for leave to appeal; sub-rule 16.2(11) of the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2006; review of weekly payments; treatment of evidence; section 55 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Acting Deputy President Robin Handley
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Leitch Hasson Dent Solicitors
Respondent: McCulloch & Buggy Solicitors
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: Time to appeal is extended to 21 March 2007.
The decision of the Arbitrator, dated 12 February 2007, is revoked and the matter is remitted to another arbitrator for redetermination in accordance with these reasons.
The Respondent is to pay the Appellant, Mr Ljubicic’s costs of this appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

  1. On 21 March 2007, Franko Ljubicic sought leave in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) to bring an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator dated 12 February 2007. The Respondent to the appeal is Akora Holdings Pty Ltd (‘Akora’) whose workers compensation insurer is QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd (‘QBE’).

  1. The background to this matter was set out by Acting Deputy President Tydd in the previous appeal in this matter (Ljubicic v Akora Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] NSWWCCPD 291), as follows:

“Prior proceedings and injuries

1. Mr Franko Ljubicic (‘Mr Ljubicic’) was born in Yugoslavia where he attended school and studied biology at university. In 1982 he came to Australia and worked as a chef. He was employed as a pastry chef by Akora Holdings Pty Limited (‘Akora’) between 1993 and 11 September 1997 when his employment ceased. On 9 September 1997 Mr Ljubicic sustained an injury to his back when he lifted a cartoon of cheese weighing approximately 25 kilograms.

2. On 15 February 2000 Mr Ljubicic commenced proceedings against Akora in the Compensation Court of NSW (‘the Court’) seeking weekly compensation payments from 5 September 1994 to date and continuing, medical and related expenses, and compensation for permanent impairment and pain and suffering in accordance with the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’). Mr Ljubicic claimed that his injuries arose as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment with Akora and the frank injury he sustained on 9 September 1997. Pursuant to section 66 of the 1987 Act Mr Ljubicic claimed the following: 9% permanent impairment of his neck; 10% permanent loss of efficient use of his right arm at or above the elbow; 20% permanent loss of efficient use of the left arm at or above the elbow; 22.5% permanent impairment of his back, and 10% permanent loss of efficient use of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ljubicic v Akora Holdings 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] NSWWCCPD 160
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ljubicic applied to the Supreme Court of Queensland for an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission. The dispute centred on the refusal of the Commission to grant an extension of time to review weekly payments and the treatment of evidence. The Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2006 provided the legal framework for the Commission's decision, while the Workers Compensation Act 1987 governed the overall workers compensation regime. The central legal issues were whether the court could grant an extension of time for leave to appeal under sub-rule 16.2(11) of the Rules and how the evidence should be treated.

The court considered whether the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2006 allowed for an extension of time for leave to appeal. The court noted that sub-rule 16.2(11) allowed for an extension of time in exceptional circumstances. The court found that the applicant's case met the criteria for an exceptional circumstance, as the applicant had acted with due diligence in pursuing the appeal and had a reasonable prospect of success. The court also considered the treatment of evidence, noting that section 55 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 allowed the Commission to consider any evidence it considered relevant. The court found that the Commission had erred in not considering all relevant evidence.

Based on the above, the court granted the extension of time for leave to appeal. The court found that the applicant had acted with due diligence and had a reasonable prospect of success. The court also found that the Commission had erred in not considering all relevant evidence. The court extended the time for appeal to 21 March 2007.

Orders

Orders of the court

Time to appeal is extended to 21 March 2007.

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.