Regis Aged Care Pty Ltd v Hunter

Regis Aged Care Pty Ltd, an employer, sought to appeal a decision of an arbitrator regarding weekly payments of compensation to an injured worker. The dispute was heard in the District Court of Western Australia. The employer argued that the arbitrator erred in law when deciding that there was no genuine dispute as to liability under s 60 of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA). The employer also argued that the arbitrator wrongly dismissed its application on the basis that it was open for the employer to issue a notice under s 61 of the Act. The court had to decide whether the appeal involved a question of law and whether the arbitrator correctly interpreted the relevant sections of the Act.

The court considered whether the appeal involved a question of law, as required by s 247 of the Act. The court applied the decision in BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady, which established that an error of law or an error of mixed fact and law was necessary for an appeal. The court found that the employer's submission that the arbitrator erroneously focused on whether it was open for the employer to serve a notice under s 61 rather than dealing with the real issue of whether there was a dispute as to liability under s 60 of the Act was incorrect. The court held that the arbitrator correctly focused on the threshold question of whether the application could properly be brought under s 60 of the Act, when s 61 or s 62 were also potentially relevant. The court concluded that the approach adopted by the arbitrator reflected the law as stated by the Full Court in Star Broken Meats. The court found that the arbitrator did not err in law in considering whether the employer could have issued a notice under s 61 of the Act.

The court rejected the employer's appeal on the basis that the arbitrator did not err in law when deciding that there was no genuine dispute as to liability under s 60 of the Act. The court held that the employer's argument that the arbitrator wrongly dismissed its application on the basis that it was open for the employer to issue a notice under s 61 of the Act was also unsuccessful. The court found that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the relevant sections of the Act in accordance with the law as stated by the Full Court in Star Broken Meats. The court held that the employer's appeal did not involve a question of law, and therefore the employer was not entitled to leave to appeal. The employer's appeal was dismissed with costs.