Legal Research
Cases
Qube Ports Pty Ltd v Bennison

Qube Ports Pty Ltd v Bennison

Link copied

Case Copied 26 September 2024 51 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   QUBE PORTS PTY LTD -v- BENNISON [2024] WADC 82
CORAM:   SEFTON DCJ
HEARD:   30 MAY 2024
DELIVERED          :   26 SEPTEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   APP 7 of 2024
BETWEEN:   QUBE PORTS PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
PAUL MARK BENNISON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE
Coram:   ARBITRATOR SHARP
File Number            :   A118608

Catchwords:

Appeal - Workers' compensation - Rule 59 Workers' Compensation and Arbitration Rules 2011 (WA) - Exercise of discretion - Medical reports - Clear and obvious case - Procedural fairness - Adequacy of reasons - Irrelevant considerations - Question of law - Revision of ex tempore reasons

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 36A r 5 (repealed)
Workers' Compensation (DRD) Rules 2005 (WA), r 90, r 91 (repealed)
Workers' Compensation and Arbitration Rules 2011 (WA), r 30, r 58, r 59 (repealed)
Workers Compensation and Arbitration Rules 2024 (WA), r 36, r 37
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 3(d), s 188, s 213, s 247 (repealed)
Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023 (WA), s 336, s 350(4)(d), s 391, s 448(2)(f), s 571, s 572, s 574 - s 576

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr R D McCabe
Respondent	:	Mr J J Sheldrick

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	McCabes
Respondent	:	JDK Legal Services

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Alcoa of Australia Limited v Blay [2015] WADC 62
Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17
Bar‑Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250
Blakers v South Metropolitan Health Service [2023] WADC 143
Bromley v Bromley [1965] P 111
Browne v Browne [2019] WASCA 1
Catholic Education Office of WA v Granitto [2012] WASCA 266
Charles v The State of Western Australia [2021] WASCA 114
David Massey v Australia National Industries (Unreported, CM-21/99, Magistrate SA Heath, 26 May 1999)
DL v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 1
Dodson v Woolworths Group Ltd [2020] WADC 157
Engine Protection Equipment Pty Ltd v Miller [2018] WASCA 55
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lam v Beesley (1992) 7 WAR 88
Low v Romaro [2023] WASCA 155
Marks v Coles Supermarket [2021] WASCA 176
Medical Board of Australia v Adams [2023] WASCA 41
Minister for Immigration v AAM17 [2021] HCA 6; (2021) 95 ALJR 292
Mitchell v Canal Rocks Beach Resort [2002] WASCA 331
O'Halloran v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2013] WASCA 59
Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60
Player v Avery [2022] WASCA 147
Ruhamah Property Co Ltd v The Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1928] HCA 22; (1928) 41 CLR 148
Secretary to the Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls [1999] 3 VR 331
Silbert v Steinberg [2010] WASCA 113
Skinner v Broadbent [2006] WASCA 2
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Summit Homes v Lucev (1996) 16 WAR 566

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 Qube Ports Pty Ltd v Bennison 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: [2024] WADC 82
Decision Date: 26 SEPTEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Qube Ports Pty Ltd v Bennison, the plaintiff, Qube Ports, sought to appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator of Western Australia, concerning the assessment of a workers' compensation claim. The dispute primarily revolved around the Regulator's exercise of discretion under Rule 59 of the Workers' Compensation and Arbitration Rules 2011 (WA) in relation to the evaluation of medical reports and the subsequent decision on the worker's entitlement to compensation. The matter was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal in Western Australia.

The central legal issues before the court included whether the Regulator had appropriately exercised its discretion in assessing the medical reports and whether the Regulator's decision was supported by adequate reasons. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there had been any procedural unfairness or if irrelevant considerations were taken into account in the Regulator's decision-making process. The court also examined whether the Regulator's ex tempore reasons, provided after the original decision, were sufficient and if they constituted a revision of the original decision.

The court found that the Regulator had failed to adequately consider the medical evidence, resulting in a failure of procedural fairness. The Regulator's initial reasons were deemed inadequate, as they did not properly address the key issues raised by the medical reports. Furthermore, the Regulator's ex tempore reasons were found to be insufficient and did not adequately explain the decision-making process. The court concluded that the Regulator's decision was flawed due to the lack of appropriate consideration of the medical evidence and the inadequacy of the reasons provided. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Regulator for re-determination.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal and the remittal of the matter to the Regulator for re-determination in accordance with the court's findings. The Regulator was directed to consider the medical evidence more thoroughly and provide comprehensive reasons for its decision, ensuring that all relevant factors were appropriately addressed.

Orders