WorkCover Corp v Elderly Citizen Homes of SA Inc No. Scgrg-99-267 Judgment No. S332 - [1999] SASC 332

WORKCOVER REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION CORPORATION V ELDERLY CITIZENS HOMES OF SA

Full Court

Coram: Millhouse, Duggan and Lander JJ

MILLHOUSE J. I will ask our brother Lander to give his vote on this question first.
LANDER J This is an appeal from an order by a judge of this court on an application by the respondent for judicial review.
The orders made included orders that the respondent on the appeal was entitled to disclosure to it of a report to a Committee constituted by the appellant, to consider an application for registration by the respondent as an exempt employer. This report was referred to in Workcover Corporation’s (the Corporation) letter to Elderly Citizen Homes dated 9 March 1999. His Honour also ordered that there be an injunction directed to the appellant to forthwith disclose the report to the respondent.
The application for that report by the respondent arose out of an application made by the respondent to the Corporation for approval as an exempt employer under s60 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986.
On that application the appellant refused to release to the respondent the report which later became the subject of his Honour's order. After his Honour had made orders first declaring that the respondent was entitled to the report and secondly the order in the nature of an injunction requiring the appellant to disclose the report to the respondent, the appellant sought a stay of the order pending an appeal to this Court against the declaration and the order in the nature of an injunction.
The appellant argued on that stay application that to refuse a stay would render the appeal to this court nugatory. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the refusal of a stay would still leave alive the principal question to be determined, and that is whether or not a report of this kind was ever required to be released by the Corporation in its decision making process.
The application for the stay by the appellant was refused. The judge refused the stay because he said the stay would interfere with the respondent's principal application for it to be approved as an exempt employer. In a sense, the Judge was faced with something of a dilemma. If he was to allow the stay, then the respondent's application for approval as an exempt employer could not be heard before 1 July 1999, which would have necessitated the postponement of that application for about 12 months with consequent cost to the respondent. On the other hand, if he was to refuse the stay, then it might be said that the appellant's rights of appeal had been rendered nugatory. In the end, he refused the stay for the reasons which I have mentioned.
The appellant, in compliance with his order, disclosed the report to the respondent. That had the effect, of course, of, in effect, deciding the issues which were raised on the application before the learned trial judge.
More particularly, and I think…

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 WorkCover Corp v Elderly Citizen Homes of SA Inc No. Scgrg-9...

Details

AGLC: WorkCover Corp v Elderly Citizen Homes of SA Inc No. Scgrg-99-267 Judgment No. S332 [1999] SASC 332
Case: [1999] SASC 332
Decision Date: 6 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves an appeal from an order made by a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia, in which the WorkCover Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation was the appellant and Elderly Citizen Homes of SA Inc was the respondent. The appeal arose from an application by the respondent for judicial review, seeking disclosure of a report concerning its application for approval as an exempt employer under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986. The primary judge had ordered the disclosure of the report and granted an injunction to the respondent, requiring the Corporation to disclose the report. The Corporation sought a stay of the order pending the appeal, which was refused by the primary judge. The Corporation then appealed to the Full Court, arguing that the refusal of the stay would render the appeal nugatory. The Full Court was required to decide whether the appeal should proceed, considering the respondent's successful application for approval as an exempt employer and the changing system for such applications. The court also considered the costs of the appeal, ultimately deciding not to make an order for costs.

The Full Court found that the appeal should be dismissed as the issues raised by the appeal had become moot. The court reasoned that the substantive application made by the respondent for approval as an exempt employer had been heard and approved, rendering the disclosure of the report irrelevant. The court also noted that the system for applications for exempt employer status had changed, making the matter less significant. The court emphasised that proceeding with the appeal would be a waste of time, as the rights in question were no longer important. The Full Court concluded that it would be inappropriate to determine a hypothetical question for the purpose of deciding rights that were no longer relevant to the parties.

The court dismissed the appeal, with all judges concurring in the decision. The court also decided not to make an order as to costs of the appeal. The Full Court was of the view that there was no reason to deviate from the normal order of costs, despite the Corporation's argument that the respondent had contributed to the situation leading to the moot appeal.

Orders