Seton v Rocla Industries Pty Ltd No 1

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR

CITATION:Seton v Rocla Industries Pty Ltd No 1 [2006] NSWWCCPD 44.
APPELLANT:  Roderick Leslie Seton
RESPONDENT:  Rocla Industries Pty Ltd
INSURER:Self-insurer
FILE NUMBERS:  WCC9479-03 and WCC8730-04
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:          20 January 2005
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  16 March 2006
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:                Leave to appeal; extension of time to appeal; fresh or additional evidence; dispensing with requirements of the Rules; error of law; jurisdiction; admissibility and refusal to admit evidence; injury; incapacity; ability to earn; credit, and inadequacy of reasons for decision.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:  Deputy President Gary Byron
HEARING:Determined on the papers
REPRESENTATION:  Appellant:     Messenger & Messenger,
Solicitors & Attorneys

Respondent: Leigh Virtue & Associates

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: The decision of the Arbitrator, dated 20 January 2005, is confirmed, for the purposes of this appeal.
No order is made as to the costs of this appeal.

FOR ALL INFORMATION, REASONS, FINDINGS AND THE DETERMINATION OF
THIS APPEAL SEE:
Rocla Industries Pty Ltd v Seton [2006] NSWWCCPD 43.
SEE ALSO RELATED APPEAL:

Seton v Rocla Industries Pty Ltd No 2 [2006] NSWWCCPD 45.

DECISION

The appeal is not successful. In this appeal, Seton v Rocla Industries Pty Ltd No 1 [2006] NSWWCCPD 44, the decision of the Arbitrator dated 20 January is confirmed. (However, the same decision of the Arbitrator was revoked in the appeal Rocla Industries Pty Ltd v Seton [2006] NSWWCCPD 43, and the matter was remitted to the Arbitrator for consideration and determination afresh).

COSTS

No order is made as to the costs of this appeal.

Gary Byron
Deputy President
16 March 2006

I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF GARY BYRON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION.

ASSOCIATE

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roderick Leslie Seton sought an appeal against a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission constituted by an arbitrator, with Rocla Industries Pty Ltd as the respondent and the insurer being a self-insurer. The appeal, which was determined on the papers, involved multiple issues including leave to appeal, extension of time to appeal, fresh or additional evidence, dispensing with the requirements of the Rules, error of law, jurisdiction, admissibility and refusal to admit evidence, injury, incapacity, ability to earn, credit, and inadequacy of reasons for decision. The hearing was conducted by Deputy President Gary Byron, with representation provided by Messenger & Messenger, Solicitors & Attorneys for the appellant, and Leigh Virtue & Associates for the respondent. The appeal sought to overturn the Arbitrator's decision dated 20 January 2005, which was ultimately confirmed by the Deputy President.

The central legal issues the court had to decide involved the procedural aspects of the appeal, including whether the appeal should be granted leave, if the time for appeal was appropriately extended, and if fresh or additional evidence should be considered. The court also examined whether any errors of law had been made in the original decision, whether the jurisdiction was properly exercised, and if there were any issues regarding the admissibility of evidence, the nature of the injury, the claimant's incapacity, his ability to earn, the credit given to the evidence, and the adequacy of the reasons provided for the original decision. These issues were thoroughly examined to determine the validity and fairness of the Arbitrator's decision.

The Deputy President, Gary Byron, carefully considered the appeal's arguments and the relevant legal principles. The court concluded that the appeal was not successful, and the Arbitrator's decision dated 20 January 2005 was confirmed for the purposes of this appeal. The court found no basis to overturn the original decision, noting that the procedural steps were appropriately followed and the evidence and reasoning provided were adequate. The decision was detailed and comprehensive, addressing all the issues raised in the appeal.

No order was made regarding the costs of the appeal, reflecting the court's conclusion that the appeal did not warrant a reversal of the Arbitrator's decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established