Zerjavic v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd

In the case of Zerjavic v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd, the appellant, Zerjavic, represented himself in an action against Chevron Australia Pty Ltd, the respondent, concerning issues of occupational health and safety in relation to petroleum operations. The dispute was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appellant, dissatisfied with the outcome, appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal involved whether the appellant, as a self-represented litigant, should be permitted to advance a new case on appeal, and if the primary judge was obliged to explain the responsibility of calling expert evidence. The Court also needed to consider whether the primary judge made any factual errors, the role of the appellate court in reviewing the primary judge's factual findings, and whether the primary judge correctly found that the respondent had no involvement in actions and decisions relating to the appellant. Additionally, the Court examined the refusal to admit evidence, whether a particular letter was a business record under the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), and if the primary judge was obliged to inform the appellant of his entitlement to issue a subpoena to obtain evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was not entitled to advance a new case on appeal, as it was neither appropriate nor in the interests of justice to do so. The Court found no error in the primary judge's approach to the calling of expert evidence and determined that the primary judge's factual findings were not in error. The Court emphasised that the role of the appellate court in reviewing factual findings is limited and that such findings should not be disturbed unless there is a clear error. The Court further concluded that the primary judge was correct in finding that the respondent had no involvement in the actions and decisions relating to the appellant. The Court also held that the letter in question was not a business record under the Evidence Act and found no procedural unfairness in the primary judge's failure to inform the appellant of his right to issue a subpoena. Finally, the Court found no basis to order a new trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs.