J ROBINS (CHIPPENDALE) PTY LTD v SAKIC [1989] NSWCA 108

J ROBINS (CHIPPENDALE) PTY LTD v SAKIC

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KIRBY P, SAMUELS and PRIESTLEY JJA 21 September 1989, 21 September 1989 [1989] NSWCA 108

WORKERS' COMPENSATION — reconsideration of award Compensation Court Act 1984, s17(4) — employer claims award procured by fraud — judge dismisses claim — employer appeals — alleged lack of reasons for refusal of application for reconsideration — challenge to basis of decision in Compensation Court held: (1) The judge's reasons, although short, were adequate as disclosing the ground of his award.

Soulemezis v Dudley Holdings Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247, 282 applied; Russell v F J Walker Pty Ltd (1989) AWCC par 7400, p48752; Maitland City Council Abattoir Dept v Sutcliffe (1989) AWCC par 74022, p 48773;

Australian Electrical Industries Pty Ltd v Marlborough (1989) AWCC par 74029, p 48779 referred to;

(2) The judge had not applied an incorrect test to the decision on the application and his references to fraud merely reflected and described the case which the employer had sought to prove before him.

JUDGES - reasons - obligation to state ground for decision - what constitutes an error in point of law - Soulemezis v Dudley Holdings Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247, 282 applied - challenge to alleged lack of reasons should not be seen as a vehicle to circumvent the provisions of s2 Compensation Court Act 1984 limiting appeals to the Court of Appeal on facts.

APPEAL - point of law - Compensation Court Act 1984 s32 - Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries (1985) 4 NSWLR 139, 156 applied - Edelsten v Ward [No2] (1989) 63 ALJR 345 referred to - observations by Priestley JA on the possible need to explore further the meaning of s32 Compensation Court Act 1984.

Compensation Court Act 1984, s17, s32 Workers' Compensation Act 1926, s36(2). Workers' Compensation Rules, r26. ORDERS Appeal dismissed with costs.