P v State of South Australia (In the Right of South Australia Police)

[2019] SASC 181

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil: Permission to Appeal in Private)

P v STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (IN THE RIGHT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA POLICE)

[2019] SASC 181

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Stanley

25 October 2019

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION - DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS - AWARD OR DETERMINATION - INTEREST

This is an application for permission to appeal from a decision of the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal (the Tribunal).

The applicant seeks permission to appeal from a judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal which dismissed an appeal from a decision of a single presidential member of the Tribunal who dismissed an interlocutory application by the applicant for the disclosure of documents by the respondent concerning the reason for an admitted error in the calculation of interest payable to him in respect of an underpayment of his entitlement to weekly payments.  The judge at first instance dismissed the application as an abuse of process as it sought documents which were not directly relevant to the issue of the calculation of the applicant’s entitlement to interest.  The Full Bench dismissed the appeal on the basis that the decision of the judge at first instance rejecting the application for disclosure of documents as an abuse of process was not attended by error. 

Held:

1.  The appeal sought does not involve a question of law or a question of general importance. 

2.  Permission to appeal refused.

South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 (SA) s 68; Return to Work Act 2014 (SA), referred to.

P v STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (IN THE RIGHT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA POLICE)
[2019] SASC 181

Civil:       Permission to Appeal in Private

1. STANLEY J:         This is an application for permission to appeal from a decision of the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal (the Tribunal).

2. Pursuant to s 68(1) of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 (SA) (the Act) an appeal lies on a question of law against a decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal to the Full Court. Section 68(2) of the Act provides that an appeal cannot be commenced except with the permission of a Judge of this Court.

3. The applicant seeks permission to appeal from a judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal which dismissed an appeal from a decision of a single presidential member of the Tribunal who dismissed an interlocutory application by the applicant for the disclosure of documents by the respondent concerning the reason for an admitted error in the calculation of interest payable to him in respect of an underpayment of his entitlement to weekly payments.  The judge at first instance dismissed the application as an abuse of process as it sought documents which were not directly relevant to the issue of the calculation of the applicant’s entitlement to interest.  The Full Bench dismissed the appeal on the basis that the decision of the judge at first instance rejecting the application for disclosure of documents as an abuse of process was not attended by error. 

4. It is apparent from the affidavit in support of the application for permission to appeal to the Full Court and the proposed grounds of appeal that the applicant seeks disclosure of documents which might have a tendency to demonstrate that the employer as the compensating authority, or other persons either employed by the employer or engaged by the employer, have acted fraudulently to deprive him of his proper entitlement to interest.  Such documents are not directly relevant to the issue of whether the applicant has been paid the correct amount of interest. 

5. Permission to appeal would rarely be granted to an applicant who seeks to appeal from an interlocutory order.  Permission to appeal cannot be granted where the appeal does not concern a question of law.  Permission to appeal will generally only be granted where the subject matter of the appeal is of general importance or involves a question of construction of the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA).

6. The appeal sought to be agitated does not involve a question of law.  Neither does it involve a question of general importance.  There is no reason to consider that the conclusion reached by the primary judge and the Full Bench that the interlocutory application is an abuse of process is in error. 

7. For all these reasons I would refuse permission to appeal.