SKIPPERS AVIATION PTY LTD -v- CURTIN [2015] WADC 82

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WADC 82
Case No:	APP:127/2014	Heard:	18 & 28 MAY 2015
Coram:	DAVIS DCJ	Delivered:	3/07/15
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	46	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	SKIPPERS AVIATION PTY LTD LAUREN PARIS MICHELLE CURTIN
Catchwords:	Workers' compensation Application for leave to appeal Adequacy of arbitrator's reasons The rule in Pollock v Wellington Onus of proof on issue of incapacity Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 s 247
Case References:	Alcoa of Australia Ltd v Blay [2015] WADC 62 Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250 BHP Billiton Nickel West Pty Ltd v Lockwood-Hall [2012] WADC 108 Catholic Education Office of Western Australia v Granitto [2012] WASCA 266 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Garrett v Nicholson (1991) 21 WAR 226 Health Department of Western Australia v Prosser [2004] WASCA 83 Leeder v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 192 Mitchell v Canal Rocks Beach Resort [2002] WASCA 331 Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273 Nardi v Department of Education and Training [2006] WACC C32-2006 Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60 Public Transport Authority v Djano [2010] WACC C9-2010 SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd v Jones [2008] WASCA 121 Summit Homes v Lucev (1996) 16 WAR 566 Velez Pty Ltd v Tudor [2011] WASCA 218 Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : SKIPPERS AVIATION PTY LTD -v- CURTIN [2015] WADC 82 CORAM : DAVIS DCJ HEARD : 18 & 28 MAY 2015 DELIVERED : 3 JULY 2015 FILE NO/S : APP 127 of 2014 BETWEEN : SKIPPERS AVIATION PTY LTD

Appellant

AND

LAUREN PARIS MICHELLE CURTIN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE (WA)

Coram : ARBITRATOR HOLYOAK-ROBERTS

Citation : ARBITRATOR'S DECISION A12332

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Application for leave to appeal - Adequacy of arbitrator's reasons - The rule in Pollock v Wellington - Onus of proof on issue of incapacity - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 s 247

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr J P Wilson

Respondent : Mr T J Hammond

Solicitors:

Appellant : WHL Legal Pty Ltd

Respondent : Simon Walters

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

Alcoa of Australia Ltd v Blay [2015] WADC 62
Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
BHP Billiton Iron…

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 Skippers Aviation Pty Ltd v Curtin 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: [2015] WADC 82
Decision Date: 3 JULY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application by Skippers Aviation Pty Ltd for leave to appeal a decision made by an arbitrator in a workers' compensation matter. The dispute centred around the adequacy of the arbitrator's reasons and the onus of proof on the issue of incapacity, with the parties invoking the rule in Pollock v Wellington. The Federal Circuit Court was tasked with determining whether the applicant was entitled to appeal the decision.

The court had to decide whether the reasons provided by the arbitrator were sufficient and whether the onus of proof regarding incapacity had been correctly applied. The key issue was whether the applicant had demonstrated that the reasons given by the arbitrator were so inadequate as to render the decision unjust or that the arbitrator had erred in their application of the rule in Pollock v Wellington.

In its decision, the court found that the reasons provided by the arbitrator were adequate, and the onus of proof had been correctly applied. The court held that the applicant had not met the threshold for leave to appeal as they had not shown that the arbitrator's decision was unjust or that there had been a significant error in the application of the law. The court emphasised that each case turns on its own facts and that the onus of proof on the issue of incapacity is a matter that must be determined based on the evidence presented in each individual case.

As a result of the court's determination, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the appeal was dismissed. The decision of the arbitrator stood, and the applicant was not permitted to appeal further.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.