Legal Research
Cases
River Hill Contracting Pty Ltd v Moore

River Hill Contracting Pty Ltd v Moore

Case [2022] WADC 60 28 June 2022

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RIVER HILL CONTRACTING PTY LTD -v- MOORE [2022] WADC 60
CORAM:   COMMISSIONER COLLINS
HEARD:   11 MARCH 2022 AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 25 FEBRUARY, 9, 10, 14 & 18 MARCH 2022
DELIVERED          :   28 JUNE 2022
FILE NO/S:   APP 80 of 2021
BETWEEN:   RIVER HILL CONTRACTING PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
COLIN MOORE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   WORKCOVER WA
Coram:   ARBITRATOR NUNN
File Number            :   A96333

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Appeal from arbitration - Whether arbitrator made an error of law in failing to apply cause of action estoppel or Anshun estoppel involving a claim under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted, but appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr J J Sheldrick
Respondent	:	Mr J N Trigg

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Respondent	:	Hoffmans Lawyers

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

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Beasley v Pilbara Mining Alliance Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 25
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250
Catholic Education Office of WA v Granitto [2012] WASCA 266
Clayton v Bant [2020] HCA 44
Department of Education v Kenworthy (1990) 3 WAR 1
DP World Australia Ltd v Fremantle Port Authority [2009] WASCA 16
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; [1843-60] All ER Rep 378; (1843) 67 ER 313
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kuligowski v Metrobus (2004) 220 CLR 363
Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Regis Aged Care Pty Ltd v Hunter [2018] WASCA 50
Salmon Street Ltd (In Liquidation) formerly General Motors‑Holden's Limited v Jorgensen (1992) 56 SASR 158
Sotico Pty Ltd v Wilson [2007] WASCA 112
Taylor v Star Broken Meats (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 920434, 26 August 1992)
The Cerebral Palsy Association of Western Australia Ltd t/as Ability Centre v Papalia [2019] WADC 180
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 28; (2015) 256 CLR 507
Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Limited (in liquidation) v Effem Foots Pty Ltd (1992) 36 FCR 406
UBS AG v Tyne [2018] HCA 45
Woolworths Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing [2013] WASCA 227
Zetta Jet Pte Ltd v The Ship 'Dragon Pearl' (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 132

COMMISSIONER COLLINS:

A. Introduction

This appeal concerns two arbitrations brought under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) (Act).
The first arbitration concerns the decision of Arbitrator Rutherford (Rutherford Arbitration and/or Rutherford Decision). That decision is also referred to as A56736. In that arbitration, the claimant, Colin Moore (Mr Moore), sought weekly compensation payments for an injury that occurred on 5 May 2017. Arbitrator Rutherford ultimately dismissed Mr Moore's application, with reasons given on 16 March 2020.
The second arbitration concerns the decision of Arbitrator Nunn (Nunn Arbitration and/or Nunn Decision). That…

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.

Continue reading River Hill Contracting Pty Ltd v Moore

Details

AGLC: River Hill Contracting Pty Ltd v Moore [2022] WADC 60
Case: [2022] WADC 60
Decision Date: 28 JUNE 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involves River Hill Contracting Pty Ltd, the respondent in the court below, and Moore, the appellant, who was previously a worker for the respondent. The dispute pertains to an arbitration decision regarding a workers' compensation claim. The issue at hand was whether the arbitrator erred in not applying cause of action estoppel or Anshun estoppel in relation to a claim Moore made under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981. This appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue was whether the arbitrator was obliged to apply cause of action estoppel or Anshun estoppel to the claim Moore made under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981. Cause of action estoppel prevents a party from bringing a claim that has already been decided, or could have been decided, in another proceeding, while Anshun estoppel prevents a party from raising an issue in a second proceeding that could have been raised in the first proceeding. The court needed to determine if the arbitrator was required to apply these estoppels, and if not, whether the appeal should be allowed on the basis of an error of law.

The Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator was not required to apply either cause of action estoppel or Anshun estoppel to the claim Moore made under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981. The court found that the Act expressly precludes the application of these estoppels, and that the arbitrator's failure to apply them was not an error of law. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. The court found that the decision of the arbitrator was correct and that no error of law had been made.

Orders