PSYCHIATRIC REHABILITATION ASSOCIATION (t/as PRA INDUSTRIES) v WOODS; PSYCHIATRIC REHABILITATION ASSOCIATION (t/as PRA INDUSTRIES) vy WOODS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL MEAGHER JA, HANDLEY JA and COLE JA 26 March 1998 [1998] NSWCA 176 APPELLANT restricted to a point of law — no question of law — appeal dismissed with costs. Cole JA. These two appeals were by consent heard together. Judge Moran, in a judgment delivered on 18 March 1997, found that Mr and Mrs Woods were, "both workers employed by the respondent within the meaning of the Act'. By four grounds of appeal the appellant PRA Industries wishes to challenge that finding. The applications for determination were filed in December 1994. However the hearing of the applications did not commence until 10 March 1997. Section 32 Compensation Court Act 1984 was amended by the Workcover Legislation Amendment Act 1985!. Relevantly that restricted appeals to this Court to a question of law or a question as to the admission or rejection of evidence. Schedule 4 to the Compensation Court Act 1984 as amended, by clause 7(2) provides; An amendment made by the 1995 Act to Division 1 (Appeals from Judges) of Part 4 extends to proceedings commenced before the commencement of the amendment but only if no hearing in the proceedings has commenced to be heard before the commencement of the amendment. The amendment commenced on | February 1996. Thus, as the hearing did not commence until 10 March 1997, the appellant is restricted on this appeal to a point of law. In Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd? Dixon CJ, Williams, Webb and Taylor JJ said: But before the Supreme Court the undoubted truth that the issue whether a man was or was not employed under a contract of service is one of fact seems to have formed a consideration which discouraged the appellant's counsel from pressing the question. The issue raised by the four grounds of appeal in the circumstances found by the trial judge in this case raises only an issue of fact in respect of which there is no appeal. Accordingly in my view the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Meagher JA. I agree. Handley JA. I also agree. Meagher JA. The order of the Court will be the appeal is dismissed with costs. Orders accordingly. 1. No. 89 of 1985, Schedule 3, para. 13. 2. (1995) 93 CLR 561 at 568-569. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS Counsel for the appellant: P Hall QC Solicitors for the appellant: Hunt and Hunt Counsel for the respondent: S Campbell Solicitors for the respondent: Andrew Fegent and Co