MACMAHON HOLDINGS LIMITED -v- McKENZIE [2018] WADC 28
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2018] WADC 28 | |
| Case No: | APP:40/2017 | 8 NOVEMBER 2017 | |
| Coram: | O'NEAL DCJ | 21/02/18 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 34 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MACMAHON HOLDINGS LIMITED TIMOTHY McKENZIE |
Catchwords: | Workers' compensation Appeal Section 247 Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 Question of law Whether 'a question of law is involved' |
Legislation: | Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) s 62, s 177, s 188, s 247 |
Case References: | Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17 Balenzuela v De Gail (1959) 101 CLR 226 BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Treby [2017] WADC 6 Heppingston v Commissioner of Railways (1901) 3 WALR 63 Manonai v Burns [2011] WASCA 165 Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149 Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 1 Thomas v Chandler Macleod [2015] WADC 78 Velez Pty Ltd v Tudor [2011] WASCA 218 |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
TIMOTHY McKENZIE
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : WORKCOVER WA
Coram : ARBITRATOR DAVIES
File No : A 34335 of 2016
Catchwords:
Workers' compensation - Appeal - Section 247 Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 - Question of law - Whether 'a question of law is involved'
Legislation:
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) s 62, s 177, s 188, s 247
Result:
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr J J Dyson
Respondent : Mr A Gunasekera
Solicitors:
Appellant : SRB Legal
Respondent : Tindall Gask Bentley Lawyers
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17
Balenzuela v De Gail (1959) 101 CLR 226
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Treby [2017] WADC 6
Heppingston v Commissioner of Railways (1901) 3 WALR 63
Manonai v Burns [2011] WASCA 165
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149
Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 1
Thomas v Chandler Macleod [2015] WADC 78
Velez Pty Ltd v Tudor [2011] WASCA 218
1 O'NEAL DCJ: This is an appeal pursuant to s 247 of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (the Act) from a decision of an arbitrator of the Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service. By a decision delivered 26 April 2017 the arbitrator granted the application of the worker, Mr McKenzie, and ordered that weekly payments of compensation be reinstated.
Procedural background
2 A concise procedural background is set out at pars 1 - 9 of the learned arbitrator's reasons for decision:
• On 10 September 2012 Mr Timothy Robert McKenzie (applicant worker) was exiting…
Continue reading MacMahon Holdings Ltd v McKenzie
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- MacMahon Holdings Ltd v McKenzie [2018] WADC 28
- Case
- [2018] WADC 28
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of MacMahon Holdings Ltd v McKenzie, the matter was before the court on an application for leave to appeal a decision concerning workers' compensation. The applicant, MacMahon Holdings Ltd, sought to appeal the decision of McKenzie, who was the respondent. The nature of the dispute involved the interpretation and application of Section 247 of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981, specifically whether it constituted a question of law that warranted an appeal.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the determination by McKenzie involved a question of law. The applicant argued that the decision contained errors of law that warranted the appeal. The court had to assess whether the dispute was indeed one of law or if it was a matter of fact or mixed law and fact. The court's task was to determine if the case satisfied the criteria for an appeal under Section 247 of the Act.
In reaching its decision, the court closely examined the nature of the decision made by McKenzie. It found that the determination did not involve a pure question of law but rather a mixed question of law and fact. The court held that the decision was predominantly based on factual findings and the application of the law to those facts, rather than a pure legal question. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the appeal did not meet the criteria for a question of law under Section 247 of the Act.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the determination by McKenzie involved a question of law. The applicant argued that the decision contained errors of law that warranted the appeal. The court had to assess whether the dispute was indeed one of law or if it was a matter of fact or mixed law and fact. The court's task was to determine if the case satisfied the criteria for an appeal under Section 247 of the Act.
In reaching its decision, the court closely examined the nature of the decision made by McKenzie. It found that the determination did not involve a pure question of law but rather a mixed question of law and fact. The court held that the decision was predominantly based on factual findings and the application of the law to those facts, rather than a pure legal question. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the appeal did not meet the criteria for a question of law under Section 247 of the Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to 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.