Ansett Australia Limited v Dominique Scherer [2002] NSWCA 98

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Ansett Australia Limited v Dominique Scherer [2002] NSWCA 98 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40470/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 4 April 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 4 April 2002

PARTIES : Ansett Australia Limited (Appellant) Dominique Scherer (Respondent) JUDGMENT OF : Mason P at 1; Handley JA at 16; Stein JA at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Compensation Court LOWER COURT WC 41862/99 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Bagnall J JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : J Wynyard (Appellant) G J Parker (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Gillis Delaney Brown (Appellant) Deacons (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : Appeal from Compensation Court - Compensation Court Act 1984, s 32(1) - whether grounds of appeal raise any point of law - whether adequate reasons - ND LEGISLATION CITED : Compensation Court Act 1984, s 32(1) CASES CITED: n/a DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40470/01

MASON P HANDLEY JA STEIN JA

Thursday, 4 April 2002 ANSETT AUSTRALIA LIMITED v Dominique SCHERER Judgment 1 MASON P: I invite Stein JA to deliver the first judgment. 2 STEIN JA: This is an appeal by Ansett Australia Limited against an award made in the Compensation Court by Judge Bagnall on 22 June 2001. Appeals from the Compensation Court to this Court are confined by s 32(1) of the Compensation Court Act 1984 to a party aggrieved by an award of a Judge in point of law, or on a question as to the admission or rejection of evidence. The second part of s 32(1) is not in issue in this appeal. 3 The notice of grounds of appeal seeks to raise five grounds. At the outset of the hearing this morning, the Court aired with counsel for the appellant, Mr Wynyard, what was the point of law purported to be raised by the grounds of appeal. Mr Wynyard sought to re-state what he said was implicit in grounds 2, 3 and 4 of the notice of grounds of appeal. 4 In my opinion, grounds 1 to 4 inclusive do not raise any point of law. They raise purely factual issues and it follows that the appeal on those grounds is incompetent. I add that in the way that counsel for the appellant sought to re-state the point of law which he submitted was involved in grounds 2 to 4 inclusive, then that reformulation involves only questions of fact and no point of law.