BAILEY v SYDNEY ELECTRICITY [1997] NSWCA 37

BAILEY v SYDNEY ELECTRICITY

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MEAGHER, COLE and BEAZLEY JJA 29 August 1997, 29 August 1997 [1997] NSWCA 37

Workers Compensation — Worker's appeal — Whether failure to give adequate reasons — Rule in Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd — No evidence — Whether there is a duty to ensure there is evidence upon which findings are made.

Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993)177 CLR 472

Beazley JA This is an appeal against an award having been entered in favour of the respondent employer.

The issue raised on the notice of grounds of appeal was the trial judge's failure to give any or any adequate reasons for what might be taken as four critical issues in the trial:

1. The appellant's medical evidence tendered in the proceedings;

2. The particular behaviour of the appellant during the course of the hearing as compared to the video footage tendered in the proceedings;

3. The appellant's medical evidence in support of a psychiatric condition; and

4. The appellant's evidence in the original proceedings not being specifically referred to.

During the course of argument no reference at all was made to the fourth of these matters and I take it that it is not pressed.

Also during the course of argument, a further additional matter was raised to which no objection was taken, namely, that there was no evidence upon which his Honour could base one of his critical findings, namely in relation to the observation of the appellant's activities over a long period of time as displayed in the video evidence.

It is convenient if I deal first with the grounds based upon his Honour's failure to give reasons.

It is true that the trial judge did not, except to a limited extent, refer to the content of the appellant's medical evidence. However, the principles enunciated in Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 do not necessarily require the degree of exactitude that it was submitted was necessary in order to fulfil the principle. What is necessary is that the essential steps in the decision-making process are disclosed in the trial judge's reasoning.