Taylor v J & D Stephens Pty Ltd

Case [2018] NSWCA 267


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Taylor v J & D Stephens Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 267
Hearing dates: 5 July 2018
Date of orders: 12 November 2018
Decision date: 12 November 2018
Before: McColl AP at [1]
Payne JA at [21]
Simpson AJA at [28]
Decision:

1. Extend the time for filing the Notice of Appeal.
2. Allow the appeal.
3. Set aside the order of the Deputy President and, in lieu thereof, order that the appeal from the Arbitrator be allowed.
4. Remit the matter to the Workers Compensation Commission for determination according to law.
5. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – workers compensation – “disease injury” – appeal against appellate decision of Deputy President – whether Deputy President misapprehended what had been put to the Arbitrator – whether Deputy President failed to exercise jurisdiction

  APPEAL – workers compensation – “disease injury” – appeal against appellate decision of Deputy President – whether appellant had suffered an “injury” – whether Deputy President had failed to address substance of appeal ground
Legislation Cited: Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited: AAI Ltd trading as GIO as agent for the Nominal Defendant v McGiffen [2016] NSWCA 229
Department of Education and Training v Ireland [2008] NSWWCCPD 134
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; 77 ALJR 1088
Harris v Sweeney (Compensation Court (NSW), 23 February 1996, unrep)
Hume Steel Ltd v Peart (1947) 75 CLR 242; [1947] HCA 34
Kumar v Legal Services Commissioner [2015] NSWCA 161
Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513
Military Rehabilitation & Compensation v May (2016) 257 CLR 468; [2016] HCA 19
Miller v RC & DM Skinner t/as Deloraine Partnership (No 2), (1998) 16 NSWCCR 222
Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 246
Taylor v J & D Stephens Pty Ltd [2017] NSWWCC 148
Taylor v J & D Stephens Pty Ltd [2017] NSWWCCPD 50
Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 187 CLR 310; [1996] HCA 31
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Matthew Taylor (Appellant)
J & D Stephens Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J W Dodd (Appellant)
P Stockley (Respondent)

    Solicitors:
McCabe Partners Lawyers (Appellant)
Lee Legal Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/77863
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under review 
Court or tribunal:
Workers Compensation Commission
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Citation:
[2017] NSWWCCPD 50
Date of Decision:
14 November 2017
Before:
Deputy President Wood
File Number(s):
A1-72/17

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The appellant was employed as a shearer, wool presser and shed hand from 1996 to 2011, at times by the respondent. From 2012 to 2015 the respondent was his employer. On 24 June 2015, in the course of that work, he was injured as a result of a faulty piece of equipment. He suffered a crush injury to his right arm. Subsequent…

Continue reading Taylor v J & D Stephens Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Taylor v J and D Stephens Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 267
Case
[2018] NSWCA 267
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a workers compensation claim for a "disease injury". The appellant, Taylor, appealed to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the Deputy President of the Workers Compensation Commission. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Deputy President had properly considered Taylor's appeal from the Arbitrator's decision.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the Deputy President had misapprehended the arguments presented to the Arbitrator, thereby failing to exercise jurisdiction. Secondly, the court considered whether the Deputy President had failed to address the substance of the appeal ground concerning whether Taylor had suffered an "injury" within the meaning of the relevant legislation.

The Court of Appeal found that the Deputy President had indeed misapprehended the case put forward by the appellant. The court reasoned that the Deputy President's decision indicated a failure to engage with the specific arguments raised by Taylor regarding the nature of the injury. Consequently, the court concluded that the Deputy President had not properly exercised their appellate jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the Deputy President's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Workers Compensation Commission for determination according to law, with the respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Extend the time for filing the Notice of Appeal.

2. Allow the appeal.

3. Set aside the order of the Deputy President and, in lieu thereof, order that the appeal from the Arbitrator be allowed.

4. Remit the matter to the Workers Compensation Commission for determination according to law.

5. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

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.