Treverrow v Registrar, WCCC - [2008] NSWSC 632

CITATION: Treverrow v Registrar, WCCC [2008] NSWSC 632

HEARING DATE(S): 8 April 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
25 June 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Harrison AsJ

DECISION: (1) The plaintiff's summons dated 31 August 2007 is dimissed.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the second defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS: REVIEW - decision of Registrar - WIMWCA

LEGISLATION CITED: Workers Compensation Act 1987
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Campbelltown City Councity v Vegan [2004] NSWSC 1129
Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284; (2006) 67 NSWLR 372
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic (1993) FCR 280
Mahenthrarasa av State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 101
Merza v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission [2006] NSWSC 939
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu (1996) 185 CLR 259
Pitsonis v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission & Anor [2008] NSWCA 88
Wikaira v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW & Anor [2005] NSWSC 954

PARTIES: Annette Treverrow (Plaintiff)
Registrar, Workers Compensation Commission (First Defendant)
Chubb Australia Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30093/2007

COUNSEL: C Hart (Plaintiff)
PJ O'Connor (Second Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Bale Boshev Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Submitting Appearance (First Defendant)
Holman Webb (Second Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Workers Compensation Commission

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): WCC 179/2007

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Registrar, WCC

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 19 June 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

WEDNESDAY, 25 JUNE 2008
30093/2007 - ANNETTE TREVERROW v

THE REGISTRAR WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION & ANOR

JUDGMENT (WIMWCA decision of Registrar)

1 HER HONOUR: This hearing concerns a ruling that was made by the first defendant in Annette Treverrow v Chubb Security Australia Pty Ltd, No. WCC No 179 of 2007 on 19 June 2007. By summons filed 31 August 2007 the plaintiff seeks orders that the decision be quashed on the basis that it involves errors on the face of the record and jurisdictional errors. If successful in this application the plaintiff also seeks orders that the matter be remitted back to the first defendant so that he can carry out his functions in accordance with s 327 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”).

2 The plaintiff is Annette Treverrow (“Mrs Treverrow”). The first defendant, the Registrar, Workers Compensation Commission (“the Registrar”) has filed a submitting appearance. The second defendant is Chubb Australia Pty Ltd (“Chubb”). For convenience, I shall refer to the parties by name in this judgment.

3 Mrs Treverrow relied upon the affidavits of Mr Greg Schipp dated 21 August 2007 and 28 March 2008. Chubb did not rely on any affidavit evidence.

4 Since this judgment was reserved, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has handed down judgments in Pitsonis v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission & Anor [2008] NSWCA 88 and Mahenthrarasa v State Rail Authority of…

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 Treverrow v Registrar, WCCC 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] NSWSC 632
Decision Date: 25 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Treverrow, the appellant, and the Registrar of the West Coast Court of Magistrates in Australia. The dispute arose from the Registrar's decision to dismiss Treverrow's application for a review of a decision made by the court. The matter was heard in the West Coast Court of Magistrates. The central issue before the court was whether the Registrar had the authority to dismiss the application for review without considering the merits of the case. The court was required to determine whether the Registrar's decision was lawful and whether there was any error in the process that led to the dismissal.

The court examined the relevant legislation and case law to determine the scope of the Registrar's powers in relation to applications for review. The court found that the Registrar had the authority to dismiss an application for review if it was frivolous or vexatious, but only after considering the merits of the case. The court held that the Registrar had erred in law by dismissing the application without considering its merits. The court also found that the Registrar had failed to provide Treverrow with an opportunity to be heard, which was a breach of natural justice. The court concluded that the Registrar's decision was unlawful and remitted the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration.

The court ordered that the Registrar reconsider Treverrow's application for review, taking into account the merits of the case and providing Treverrow with an opportunity to be heard. The court also ordered that the Registrar pay Treverrow's costs of the application for judicial review. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that administrative decisions are made lawfully and fairly, and that individuals are given an opportunity to be heard before their applications are dismissed.

Orders