WOODSIDE ENERGY LTD -v- KIERONSKI [2016] WADC 144

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WADC 144
Case No:	APP:90/2015	Heard:	19 AUGUST 2016
Coram:	PARRY DCJ	Delivered:	29/09/16
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	29	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted in relation to grounds 3, 4 and 5 Appeal allowed and decision quashed Matter remitted to Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service for determination in accordance with law by a different arbitrator
PDF Version

Parties:	WOODSIDE ENERGY LTD CATHERINE KIERONSKI
Catchwords:	Workers' compensation Application for leave to appeal from decision of arbitrator Total incapacity Disease caused by stress wholly or predominantly arising from discipline of worker No compensable injury unless discipline of worker 'unreasonable and harsh' on part of employer Determination by arbitrator that discipline of worker unreasonable and harsh on part of employer Whether question of law involved Relevance Content of duty of procedural fairness Whether, if leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed, court should itself determine whether employer's conduct was unreasonable and harsh or should remit matter to Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) s 5(1), s 5(4), s 5(4)(a), s 18, s 247, s 247(1), s 247(2)(a)(i), s 247(5), s 247(7)
Case References:	BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250 Department of Education v Azmitia [2014] WADC 85 Evans v The Queen [2007] HCA 59; (2007) 235 CLR 521 Frost v Shire of Kalamunda [2007] WASC 322 Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1 Housing Industry Association Ltd v Murten [2004] WASCA 139 Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60 R v Vaughan (No 2) [2009] SASC 395; (2009) 105 SASR 532

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : WOODSIDE ENERGY LTD -v- KIERONSKI [2016] WADC 144 CORAM : PARRY DCJ HEARD : 19 AUGUST 2016 DELIVERED : 29 SEPTEMBER 2016 FILE NO/S : APP 90 of 2015 BETWEEN : WOODSIDE ENERGY LTD

Appellant

AND

CATHERINE KIERONSKI

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : WORKCOVER WA

Coram : ARBITRATOR W POWLES

Citation : A12976

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Application for leave to appeal from decision of arbitrator - Total incapacity - Disease caused by stress wholly or predominantly arising from discipline of worker - No compensable injury unless discipline of worker 'unreasonable and harsh' on part of employer - Determination by arbitrator that discipline of worker unreasonable and harsh on part of employer - Whether question of law involved - Relevance - Content of duty of procedural fairness - Whether, if leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed, court should itself determine whether employer's conduct was unreasonable and harsh or should remit matter to Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) s 5(1), s 5(4), s 5(4)(a), s 18, s 247, s 247(1), s 247(2)(a)(i), s 247(5), s 247(7)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted in relation to grounds 3, 4 and 5

Appeal…

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 Woodside Energy Ltd v Kieronski 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: [2016] WADC 144
Decision Date: 29 SEPTEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woodside Energy Ltd v Kieronski was brought before the court regarding a dispute over workers' compensation. The applicant, Woodside Energy Ltd, sought leave to appeal against the decision of an arbitrator who found that the respondent, Kieronski, was totally incapacitated due to a disease caused by stress. The disease arose predominantly from the discipline of the worker, which the arbitrator determined was unreasonable and harsh on the part of the employer. The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the question of law involved was relevant to the content of the duty of procedural fairness. A secondary issue was whether, if leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed, the court should determine whether the employer's conduct was unreasonable and harsh, or remit the matter to the Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service.

The court found that the question of law involved was indeed relevant, as it pertained to the standard of discipline expected of an employer. The court held that the arbitrator had erred in considering the reasonableness and harshness of the employer's conduct without sufficient legal basis. The court concluded that the arbitrator should have assessed whether the employer's conduct was unreasonable and harsh in a manner that complied with the legal standards established in previous cases. The court also determined that if the appeal was allowed, the matter should be remitted to the Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service for reconsideration by a different arbitrator, ensuring that the determination was made in accordance with the law.

In light of the court's findings, leave to appeal was granted in relation to grounds 3, 4, and 5. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the arbitrator was quashed. The matter was then remitted to the Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service for a new determination by a different arbitrator, ensuring that the decision was made in accordance with the applicable law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted in relation to grounds 3, 4 and 5

Appeal allowed and decision quashed

Matter remitted to Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service for determination in accordance with law by a different arbitrator

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.