DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:
Terrivic Pty Limited v Davis [2016] NSWWCCPD 27
APPELLANT:
Terrivic Pty Limited
RESPONDENT:
Adele Elizabeth Davis
INSURER:
QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd
FILE NUMBER:
A1-4072/15
ARBITRATOR:
Mr R Perrignon
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:
13 January 2016
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:
20 May 2016
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:
Leave to cross-examine; effect of resignation without stipulated period of notice on contract of employment; injury in the course of or arising out of employment (s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987); adequacy of reasons; alleged errors in fact finding
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:
Deputy President Michael Snell
HEARING:
On the papers
REPRESENTATION:
Appellant:
Mulcahy Lawyers
Respondent:
Firths – The Compensation Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:
1. The Arbitrator’s decision dated 13 January 2016 is confirmed.
INTRODUCTION
Terrivic Pty Limited (the appellant) operated the KFC franchise in Broken Hill (the store). Adele Elizabeth Davis (the respondent) was employed there from 2 April 2012, full-time, as the assistant manager. The respondent suffered serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 7 May 2013. It was common ground that, if the respondent succeeded, she was entitled to weekly compensation at a rate of $936.68 per week, on the basis that she had no current work capacity, over a closed period from 7 May 2013 to 16 July 2015.
The issue in the case was whether the respondent’s injuries were sustained in the course of, or arising out of, her employment with the appellant.
BACKGROUND
The respondent stated that she had difficulties with Cameron Wilson, the manager of the store. There were “not enough staff”. The respondent worked long hours. Mr Wilson bullied her, he yelled at her for not doing things that were “often impossible in circumstances when [she] was the only person around”. He would often send abusive text messages. He was abusive to other staff in front of customers. The respondent said that over a number of months “it got to a point where I was finding it very difficult to continue to work at KFC”.
Diane Leonard was the sole director of the appellant company. She stated that her husband, David Aitchison, assisted with administrative duties. Ms Leonard lived in Renmark, South Australia. The respondent said that Renmark was “approximately a few hours’ drive from Broken Hill”. The respondent said that Mr Wilson would not allow her to speak with “the owners”.
The respondent resided in Broken Hill at the time of her injury.
The respondent stated that when she arrived at work on 7 May 2013 Mr Wilson immediately yelled at her for not completing tasks. She said that she went into the office and Mr Wilson followed her and started yelling at her again. The respondent said that she wrote a “short letter of resignation”, went to her car in the car park, and started driving “towards Renmark where the owners live”. She stated:
“My intention was to get to Renmark and speak with…
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 Terrivic Pty Limited v Davis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Terrivic Pty Limited v Davis [2016] NSWWCCPD 27
Case
[2016] NSWWCCPD 27
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Terrivic Pty Limited v Davis, the dispute arose from a claim for workers compensation by the respondent, Davis, following an injury sustained in the course of his employment. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the primary concern was the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Arbitrator for his decision dated 13 January 2016. Davis argued that the Arbitrator had erred in fact-finding, which led to an inadequate conclusion regarding his entitlement to compensation. The employer, Terrivic Pty Limited, contended that the Arbitrator's decision was sound and should be upheld.
The central legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the Arbitrator provided sufficient reasons for his decision and whether there were any errors in the factual findings that undermined the Arbitrator's conclusions. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the reasons required to support an Arbitrator's decision and whether the reasons provided were adequate to withstand scrutiny. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the Arbitrator's factual findings were correct and, if not, whether these errors were significant enough to affect the overall decision on compensation.
The Court of Appeal found that the Arbitrator had provided adequate reasons for his decision, addressing the key issues pertinent to Davis's claim. The court concluded that the reasons were sufficient and logically supported the Arbitrator's findings. It was determined that any perceived errors in fact-finding did not materially affect the Arbitrator's conclusions regarding Davis's entitlement to compensation. Therefore, the court upheld the Arbitrator's decision, confirming the decision dated 13 January 2016.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Arbitrator's decision was confirmed. The court found no grounds to interfere with the Arbitrator's judgment, affirming that Davis's claim for workers compensation was appropriately addressed. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear and sufficient reasons in administrative law decisions and reinforced the principle that minor factual errors do not necessarily invalidate the overall outcome if they do not materially impact the decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Arbitrator’s decision dated 13 January 2016 is confirmed.