Moore-McQuillan v WorkCover - [2009] SASC 290

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court)
MOORE-MCQUILLAN v WORKCOVER
[2009] SASC 290
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Justice Duggan, The Honourable Justice Bleby and The Honourable Justice Sulan)
29 September 2009
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPEAL
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - WHEN APPEAL LIES - BY LEAVE OF COURT - INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS
Applications for extension of time to appeal and permission to appeal to Full Court against dismissal of applications by primary judge to re-open appeals against convictions recorded in the Magistrates Court for obtaining payments or benefits by dishonest means and from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal refusing an application for an extension of time to appeal against decisions of review officers as to the applicant’s entitlement to weekly payments.
Held: No substance to the issues applicant wishes to pursue on appeal – appeal bears no reasonable prospect of success – no substance to applicant’s complaints in relation to hearing before primary judge – application for extension of time to appeal refused.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) s 20(1)(a), referred to.
Moore-McQuillan v WorkCover Corporation SA [2007] SASC 219; Moore-McQuillan v WorkCover Corporation/Vero Workers Compensation (SA) Ltd (formerly Royal & Sun Alliance Workers Compensation (SA) Ltd (Wolf Air and Dive Shop) [2006] SAWCT 70; Moore-McQuillan v WorkCover (Wolf Air and Dive Shop) [2003] SAWCAT 1; Moore-McQuillan v WorkCover [2003] SASC 325, discussed.

MOORE-MCQUILLAN v WORKCOVER
[2009] SASC 290
Full Court: Duggan, Bleby & Sulan JJ

THE COURT: The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to appeal and permission to appeal to the Full Court against a judgment of Perry J delivered on 26 February 2007.[1] On that occasion Perry J dealt with two applications by the applicant. The first was an interlocutory application to re‑open an appeal to this Court in action number 830 of 1996. The second was a similar application which sought permission to appeal to this Court in action number 1113 of 2003 against a decision of the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. Both applications were dismissed by Perry J.
[1] Moore-McQuillan v WorkCover Corporation SA [2007] SASC 55.
In the case of an interlocutory judgment, an appeal to the Full Court requires permission: Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 281. Under r 282 an application for permission to appeal may be heard by the single judge against whom the appellant seeks permission to appeal or by the Full Court. By the time the applicant made his application, Perry J had retired. In the circumstances the matter came before Layton J.
The application was out of time and, for reasons she then gave, Layton J refused an extension of time in which to apply for permission to appeal.[2]
[2] Moore-McQuillan v WorkCover Corporation SA [2007] SASC 219.
The applicant is unrepresented. The document which he filed in…

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.

Continue reading Moore-McQuillan v WorkCover

Details

AGLC: Moore-McQuillan v WorkCover [2009] SASC 290
Case: [2009] SASC 290
Decision Date: 29 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Moore-McQuillan, the appellant, filed an appeal against WorkCover, the respondent, concerning a matter of insurance. The dispute was brought before the South Australian Court of Appeal. The appeal revolved around the question of whether the primary judge erred in law when deciding to grant WorkCover an extension of time to appeal an interlocutory order and judgment. Specifically, the court had to determine if the primary judge's decision to allow the extension was an error of law and whether it resulted in any prejudice to the appellant.

The court examined the relevant legal principles governing extensions of time for appeals in South Australia. It was noted that an appeal from an interlocutory order or judgment generally requires the leave of the court. The court considered the primary judge's assessment of whether granting the extension would cause substantial injustice or prejudice to the appellant. The court also evaluated the circumstances under which an extension of time should be granted, including any relevant statutory provisions and common law principles.

The South Australian Court of Appeal held that the primary judge did not err in granting the extension of time to WorkCover. The court found that the primary judge had appropriately considered the factors relevant to granting an extension, including the potential for prejudice to the appellant. The court concluded that the primary judge's decision was not an error of law and that no substantial injustice or prejudice resulted from the extension of time. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

No specific orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders