Legal Research
Cases
Quadi v The Reject Shop (Aust) Pty Ltd

Quadi v The Reject Shop (Aust) Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 9 January 2008 31 min read

Contents

On this page

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR

CITATION:Quadi v The Reject Shop (Aust) Pty Ltd [2008] NSWWCCPD 3
APPELLANT:  Angie Quadi
RESPONDENT:  The Reject Shop (Aust) Pty Ltd
INSURER:Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited
FILE NUMBER:  WCC4648-07
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:          19 September 2007
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  9 January 2008
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:                Procedural fairness; whether the failure to cross-examine resulted in a denial of procedural fairness
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:  Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING:On the papers
REPRESENTATION:  Appellant:      Teakle Ormsby George
Respondent:   Ellison Tillyard Callanan

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: The decision of the Arbitrator dated 19 September 2007 is confirmed.
No order as to costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

In this matter the Appellant Worker, Angie Quadi (also known as Angie Protonotariou), started work for The Reject Shop (Aust) Pty Ltd (‘the Respondent Employer/The Reject Shop’) in September 2005 working 25 hours per week as a permanent part time worker in stock and on the cash registers. She alleges that she injured her neck while lifting boxes of drinks at work on 18 April 2002. The insurer initially accepted her claim but later denied liability by letter dated 24 June 2002.

Ms Quadi first sought compensation as a result of her alleged injuries in an Application to Resolve a Dispute (‘the first Application’) registered in the Commission on or about 30 June 2006. That Application alleged Ms Quadi injured her neck, left shoulder and arm, upper back and scapular at work on 18 April 2002. By its Reply (the first Reply) filed on 13 July 2006, the Respondent Employer denied injury, incapacity and that employment was a substantial contributing factor to any injury. This Application was discontinued at a teleconference on 11 September 2006.

A second Application was filed in the Commission on 26 June 2007 alleging injuries to Ms Quadi’s “neck, left shoulder, arm and back”. The Respondent Employer filed a Reply to this Application on 17 July 2007. This Reply attached a copy of the first Reply and the documents attached to it. Those documents included a copy of Ms Quadi’s first statement dated 3 June 2002.

In an arbitration hearing held in the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW on 29 August 2007 counsel represented each party. Counsel for Ms Quadi amended the second Application by discontinuing the claim that Ms Quadi had injured her back (T1.25). No application was made to adduce oral evidence and the matter proceeded with submissions from each side. In a reserved decision delivered on 19 September 2007 the Arbitrator made an award in favour of the Respondent Employer on the ground that she was not satisfied that Ms Quadi had sustained any injury arising out of or in the course of her employment.

By an appeal filed on 8 October 2007 the Appellant Worker seeks leave to appeal the Arbitrator’s determination.

LEAVE TO APPEAL

Monetary Threshold

Before proceeding to deal with an appeal the Commission must…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Quadi v The Reject Shop (Aust) 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: [2008] NSWWCCPD 3
Decision Date: 9 January 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Quadi v The Reject Shop (Aust) Pty Ltd, the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW considered an appeal against an arbitrator's decision, which awarded no compensation to the claimant, Angie Quadi. The primary issue was whether the Arbitrator erred in failing to cross-examine the claimant, thereby denying her procedural fairness. The court examined the principles of procedural fairness, concluding that the claimant was aware of the challenges to her case and had ample opportunity to address the issues. The court also reviewed whether the Arbitrator properly considered the evidence, ultimately agreeing with the Arbitrator's reasoning and affirming the original decision. The appeal was dismissed, and no order was made regarding the costs of the appeal.

Orders