JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION: ZAMORA -v- OCS SERVICES PTY LTD [2025] WASCA 117
CORAM: VAUGHAN JA
ARCHER JA
COBBY J
HEARD: 12 MAY 2025
DELIVERED : 4 AUGUST 2025
FILE NO/S: CACV 59 of 2024
BETWEEN: ARTURO ZAMORA
Appellant
AND
OCS SERVICES PTY LTD
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: CURWOOD DCJ
Citation: ZAMORA -v- OCS SERVICES PTY LTD [2024] WADC 77
File Number : APP 42 of 2023
Catchwords:
Appeal - Workers' compensation - Procedural fairness - Appellant put on notice as to credibility and reliability of his evidence in relation to alleged injury - Turns on own facts
Appeal - Workers' compensation - Legal adequacy of reasons - General law requirement to provide adequate reasons modified by statute - Arbitrator's reasons legally adequate - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) s 213, s 254, div 4 pt XI, s 188
Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023 (WA) s 393, s 546, s 571, s 575
District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA) s 79
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) s 37
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Appellant | : | J J Sheldrick |
| Respondent | : | D R Clyne |
Solicitors:
| Appellant | : | Maurice Blackburn |
| Respondent | : | Moray & Agnew Lawyers |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Agostini [No 2] [2009] WASCA 231
Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 7; (2013) 252 CLR 38
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Bowles v Department of Justice [2005] WASCA 28
Browne v Browne [2019] WASCA 1
Child and Adolescent Health Service v Mabior [2019] WASCA 151; (2019) 55 WAR 208
Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576
Davie v Manuel [2024] WASCA 21
DL v The Queen [2018] HCA 26; (2018) 266 CLR 1
Dodson v Woolworths Group Ltd [2022] WASCA 22
Duluxgroup (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chapple [2023] WASCA 83
Engine Protection Equipment Pty Ltd v Miller [2018] WASCA 55
F Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
HT v The Queen [2019] HCA 40; (2019) 269 CLR 403
Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550
Kipoi Holdings Mauritius Ltd v Kirman [No 4] [2024] WASCA 145
Manonai v Burns [2011] WASCA 165
McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [2013] WASCA 135
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Citic Limited [2024] WASCA 168
Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36; (2018) 265 CLR 236
Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia [2020] WASCA 58
Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97; (2007) 33 WAR 361
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Zamora v OCS Services Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] WASCA 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the appellant was provided with procedural fairness during the hearing and whether the arbitrator's reasons for the decision were legally adequate. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the appellant was adequately warned about the credibility and reliability of his evidence concerning his alleged injury and whether the reasons given by the arbitrator were sufficient under the statutory framework.
The court found that procedural fairness had been afforded to the appellant as he was given a reasonable opportunity to present his case, and he was put on notice of the need for reliable evidence concerning his alleged injury. The court held that the arbitrator's reasons were legally adequate, as they were sufficient under the statutory framework governing workers' compensation. The court emphasised that the requirements of procedural fairness and the adequacy of reasons must be assessed within the context of the statutory framework and the specific circumstances of the case.
The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the arbitrator was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
The authorities establish the following general propositions in relation to affording procedural fairness to a litigant:1.What is required by procedural fairness is a fair hearing, not a fair outcome: SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.[21]2.To say that a court, tribunal or statutory decision-maker is obliged to afford procedural fairness is only the first step of analysis. The second step is to identify the content of the requirements of procedural fairness. It is the second step that is critical in most cases: Kioa v West.[22]3.The precise content of the requirements of procedural fairness in any particular case will depend critically upon the statutory framework within which the relevant power falls to be exercised and the facts and circumstances of the particular case: SZBEL [26].4.The rules of procedural fairness do not have immutably fixed content but rather are flexible. The content of procedural fairness will vary according to the circumstances of the particular case. Procedural fairness is essentially practical; it is not an abstract concept. The concern of the law is the avoidance of practical injustice. What is necessary to avoid practical injustice will depend on the circumstances. See Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam;[23] HT v The Queen.[24]5.One aspect of procedural fairness is that a litigant must be given a 'reasonable opportunity' of being heard, ie of appearing and presenting its case by evidence, information and submissions. It is assumed, as a general rule, that opposing parties will know what case an opposite party seeks to make and how that party seeks to make it: HT v The Queen [17].6.Similarly, a court, tribunal or statutory decision-maker should not make an adverse finding relevant to a person's rights, interests or legitimate expectations unless the court, tribunal or statutory decision‑maker has warned that person of the risk of that finding being made or unless the risk necessarily inheres in the issues to be decided: Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala.[25]7.The application of the requirements of procedural fairness to a court or tribunal requires analysis of the procedures of the court or tribunal and the legislation and rules which govern them: Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd.[26]8.Ordinarily, in order to ground relief, a failure to comply with the requirement to afford procedural fairness must have been material ‑ it must have deprived the party of the possibility of a successful outcome: Stead v State Government Insurance Commission;[27] Nobarani v Mariconte.[28][21] SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63; (2006) 228 CLR 152 (SZBEL) [25].[22] Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550, 585.[23] Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1 [37].[24] HT v The Queen [2019] HCA 40; (2019) 269 CLR 403 [18].[25] Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82 (Ex parte Aala) [101]. This proposition is derived from the judgment of McHugh J in Ex parte Aala. McHugh J was in dissent in Ex parte Aala. His Honour differed in the ultimate outcome based on discretionary grounds. However, there is no doubt as to the correctness of McHugh J's statement of principle. Also, while the statement was made in the context of administrative decision-making, it is equally applicable to curial or quasi-curial decisions.[26] Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 7; (2013) 252 CLR 38 [156].[27] Stead v State Government Insurance Commission [1986] HCA 54; (1986) 161 CLR 141, 145, 147.[28] Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36; (2018) 265 CLR 236 [38] ‑ [39].