Onesteel Reinforcing Pty Ltd v Sutton [2012] NSWCA 282
Hearing dates:
28 August 2012
Decision date:
28 August 2012
Before:
Allsop P at [1], McColl JA at [5], Basten JA at [75]
Decision:
1. The name of the appellant be amended to Onesteel Reinforcing Pty Ltd.
2. Appeal dismissed with costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:
WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Commission - Arbitrator's decision - appeal to Presidential Member - error of law - whether no evidence to support finding that respondent injured while working for appellant - whether arbitrator answered wrong question in situation where possibility injury occurred at two workplaces
WORKERS COMPENSATION - procedure - s 354 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 - procedures before Commission not governed by rules of evidence - arbitrator required to draw conclusions from material that is satisfactory in probative sense - where respondent's credit impugned - whether arbitrator entitled to rely on expert reports where medical history respondent gave experts differed from evidence accepted by arbitrator
WORKERS COMPENSATION - procedure - procedures before Commission not governed by rules of evidence - Workers Compensation Commission Rules -evidence required to be logical and probative, relevant to facts in issue and issues in dispute, not based on speculation or unsubstantiated assumptions, not in form of unqualified opinions - not a reintroduction of rules of evidence
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - s 354 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 - procedures before Commission not governed by rules of evidence - Workers Compensation Commission Rules - evidence required to be logical and probative, relevant to facts in issue and issues in dispute, not based on speculation or unsubstantiated assumptions, not in form of unqualified opinions - rules not to be construed in manner inconsistent with statute
[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 Onesteel Reinforcing Pty Ltd v Sutton
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
OneSteel Reinforcing Pty Ltd v Sutton [2012] NSWCA 282
Case
[2012] NSWCA 282
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales from a decision of a Presidential Member of the Workers Compensation Commission. The appeal arose from a decision by an arbitrator concerning a claim for workers' compensation made by the respondent, Mr Sutton, against the appellant, Onesteel Reinforcing Pty Ltd. The core of the dispute involved whether Mr Sutton had sustained an injury while working for Onesteel, particularly in circumstances where the injury might have occurred at two different workplaces.
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the arbitrator erred in law by making a finding that the respondent was injured while working for the appellant without sufficient evidence, and whether the arbitrator had answered the wrong question given the possibility of injury occurring at two distinct workplaces. Further, the court considered the application of section 354 of the *Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998*, which stipulates that procedures before the Commission are not governed by the strict rules of evidence, and whether the arbitrator was entitled to rely on expert reports when the respondent's credit had been impugned and his medical history provided to the experts differed from the evidence accepted by the arbitrator. The court also examined the Workers Compensation Commission Rules regarding the nature of evidence required, specifically that it must be logical, probative, relevant, and not based on speculation or unsubstantiated assumptions, and whether these rules were intended to reintroduce the formal rules of evidence.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that while section 354 of the Act and the Commission Rules permit a less formal approach to evidence than traditional court proceedings, the evidence relied upon must still be satisfactory in a probative sense. The court found that the arbitrator was entitled to draw conclusions from the material before him, including expert reports, even if the respondent's credit was challenged or his account to experts differed from other evidence. The key was that the evidence, when considered logically and probatively, supported the arbitrator's findings. The court affirmed that the Commission Rules did not operate to reintroduce the formal exclusionary rules of evidence but rather set standards for the quality and relevance of the evidence to be considered.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court also ordered that the name of the appellant be amended to Onesteel Reinforcing Pty Ltd.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The name of the appellant be amended to Onesteel Reinforcing Pty Ltd.
2. Appeal dismissed with costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]