Legal Research
Cases
Thomas v Chandler MacLeod

Thomas v Chandler MacLeod

Case [2015] WADC 78 26 June 2015

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Statutory Interpretation

Worker's Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: THOMAS -v- CHANDLER MACLEOD [2015] WADC 78

CORAM: O'NEAL DCJ

HEARD: 16 JANUARY & 2 FEBRUARY 2015

DELIVERED : 26 JUNE 2015

FILE NO/S: APP 95 of 2014

BETWEEN: ARTHUR ROY THOMAS
Appellant
AND
CHANDLER MACLEOD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE (WA)
Coram  :ARBITRATOR EVANS
File No  :A 11657 of 2014

Catchwords:

Worker's compensation - Appeal from Worker's Compensation Arbitration Service - Whether arbitrator gave adequate reasons for decision - Leave to appeal - Whether a question of law is involved - Proper construction of s 247(2) - Whether 'an amount of compensation is at issue' in appeal - Whether 'an amount awarded in the decision appealed against'

Legislation:

Worker's Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) s 62, s 178, s 213, s 247

Result:

Leave granted with respect to ground 2
Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr T H Offer
Respondent: Mr A Basile

Solicitors:

Appellant: Stephen Browne Lawyers
Respondent: SRB Legal

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

Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v FCT [1983] 1 NSWLR 1
Amana Living v Soliven [2013] WADC 118
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Barrick Gold of Australia Pty Ltd v Tania Michelle Lucas [2009] WACC CT‑2009
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 UKHL
Bulstrode v Trimble [1970] VR 840
Catholic Education Office of WA v Granitto [2012] WASCA 266
Clarke v Royal Perth Hospital [2010] WACC C1‑2010
Geraldton Building Co Pty Ltd v May (1977) 13 ALR 17
Hasic v Delmere Holdings Pty Ltd T/as DTMT Construction [2008] WACC C8‑2010
Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd v Lang [2013] WADC 117
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273
Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60
Pedley v West Coast College of TAFE [2006] WACC C21‑2006
Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 1
Public Transport Authority v Ettie Djano [2010] C9-2010
Roney v Accommodation West Pty Ltd [2009] WACC C10‑2009
SDR Australia v Mile Nedic [2009] WACC C3-2009
Secretary to the Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls [1999] 3 VR 331
Velez Pty Ltd v Tudor [2011] WASCA 218
Victims Compensation Fund v Brown [2002] NSWCA 155; (2002) 54 NSWLR 668
Victims Compensation Fund v Brown [2003] HCA 54; (2003) 201 ALR 260
Wainohu v New South Wales [2011] HCA 24; (2011) 278 ALR 1

O'NEAL DCJ: This is an appeal pursuant to s 247 of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (the Act) from a decision of an arbitrator of the Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service. The arbitrator allowed the respondent's application pursuant to s 62 of the Act and ordered that weekly payments of compensation to the appellant be discontinued.

Background

In 2012 the appellant, Mr Thomas, was employed by the respondent. The respondent is a labour hire company.

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 Thomas v Chandler MacLeod

Details

AGLC: Thomas v Chandler MacLeod [2015] WADC 78
Case: [2015] WADC 78
Decision Date: 26 JUNE 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved Thomas, an employee, who appealed a decision of the Worker's Compensation Arbitration Service. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the reasons provided by the arbitrator for the decision rendered, and the right to appeal the decision. The court of appeal was tasked with determining whether the question involved was one of law, whether section 247(2) was correctly interpreted, and whether the appeal pertained to an amount of compensation or an amount awarded in the decision appealed against.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address included the proper construction of section 247(2) of the relevant legislation, the criteria for an adequate statement of reasons by an arbitrator, and the circumstances under which an appeal from the Worker's Compensation Arbitration Service is permissible. The court was required to consider whether the question at hand involved a question of law, which would allow for an appeal on the basis of legal error, or whether it related to a factual dispute, which would not. The court also needed to examine whether the amount of compensation in dispute was the actual amount awarded by the arbitrator, or if it involved a different sum.

The court concluded that the question involved was indeed one of law, as it pertained to the proper interpretation of section 247(2). The court held that the reasons provided by the arbitrator were inadequate, as they did not sufficiently address the legal issues involved. The court found that the appeal related to an amount of compensation, not merely the amount awarded by the arbitrator. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Worker's Compensation Arbitration Service for further consideration in light of the court's findings. The court did not make any further orders beyond allowing the appeal and remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Orders