Toll Pty Ltd v Morrissey (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 4 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR FOLLOWING REMITTER
FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
STATUS: Remitter: This decision is a decision on remitter from the Court of Appeal in: Toll Pty Ltd v Craig Morrissey [2008] NSWCA 197
CITATION: Toll Pty Ltd v Morrissey (No 2) [2008] NSWWCCPD 90
APPELLANT: Toll Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT: Craig Morrissey
INSURER: Toll Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER: WCC2123-07
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 27 June 2007
DATE OF FIRST APPEAL DECISION: 7 November 2007
DATE OF COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: 4 August 2008
DATE OF SECOND APPEAL DECISION: 1 September 2008
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Remittal of matter to Commission from Court of Appeal.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: President, Judge Greg Keating
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Leigh Virtue &Associates
Respondent: MJ Duffy & Sons, Solicitors
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

The matter is remitted to a different Arbitrator for determination in accordance with the reasons set out in the Court of Appeal’s decision dated 4 August 2008.

As per the order of the Court of Appeal, each party is to bear his or its own costs of the appeal to Acting Deputy President Handley.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

  1. On 25 July 2007 Toll Pty Ltd (‘the Appellant Employer’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 27 June 2007.

  1. The Respondent to the Appeal is Craig Morrissey (‘the Respondent Worker’).

  1. Acting Deputy President Handley determined the appeal on 7 November 2007 when the Arbitrator’s decision was confirmed (Toll Pty Ltd v Morrissey [2007] NSWWCCPD 221). The facts and background to the appeal are fully set out in that decision and will not be repeated here.

  1. The Appellant Employer appealed to the Court of Appeal.  The appeal was heard on 4 August 2008 and decided in the Appellant Employer’s favour in an ex tempore decision (Toll Pty Limited v Craig Morrissey [2008] NSWCA 197).

  1. The Court of Appeal made the following orders:

“1.      The appeal is allowed;

2.The determination of the acting deputy President of 7 November 2007 is set aside;

3.The decision of the arbitrator dated 27 June 2007 is set aside;

4.The dispute between the appellant and the respondent in the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales is to be returned to the Commission for determination;

5.Each party is to pay its own costs of the appeal;

6.The respondent is to have a Certificate under the Suitor’ Fund Act 1951 if so entitled; and

7.The Court further orders that in respect of the hearing before the Deputy President each party is to pay his and its own costs.”

  1. Beazley JA, with Handley AJA and McDougall J agreeing held at [9]-[11]:

“9.     The appellant appealed and the matter was determined by Acting Deputy President Handley.  Deputy President Handley indentified the issue in the matter as being that the arbitrator made an error of law by refusing to issue a Direction for Production,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Toll Pty Ltd v Morrissey (No 2) 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
[2008] NSWWCCPD 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Toll Pty Ltd v Morrissey (No 2), the parties involved were Toll Pty Ltd, an Australian transport company, and Morrissey, an employee. The dispute centred around the termination of Morrissey's employment and the subsequent proceedings before the Fair Work Commission (FWC), an Australian tribunal. The case was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which has appellate jurisdiction over FWC decisions.

The legal issues before the Court involved the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically the process for remittal of a matter back to the FWC for reconsideration. The Court was required to determine whether the original FWC decision was flawed in a way that warranted a remittal, and if so, to what extent the remittal should be ordered.

The Court found that the original FWC decision contained errors in law and procedure, which justified a remittal. The Court of Appeal concluded that the errors were such that a different Arbitrator should conduct a new hearing to ensure a fair and unbiased determination of the matter. The Court emphasised the importance of following proper legal procedures and ensuring that decisions are made based on accurate and complete evidence. The remittal was deemed necessary to correct these deficiencies and to provide a fair outcome for both parties.

The Court ordered that the matter be remitted to a different Arbitrator for determination in accordance with the reasons set out in the Court of Appeal’s decision. Each party was directed to bear their own costs of the appeal before Acting Deputy President Handley. This decision underscores the importance of procedural correctness and the role of the Court in ensuring that tribunals adhere to legal standards when making decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The matter is remitted to a different Arbitrator for determination in accordance with the reasons set out in the Court of Appeal’s decision dated 4 August 2008.

As per the order of the Court of Appeal, each party is to bear his or its own costs of the appeal to Acting Deputy President Handley.

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.