South 32 t/as Westcliff Colliery v Ockers [2017] NSWCA 324

South 32 t/as Westcliff Colliery v Ockers [2017] NSWCA 324

No jurisdictional error was shown in the District Court's decision to allow reopening; no procedural unfairness or actual/apparent bias was present; errors, if any, concerned matters within jurisdiction; no grounds for judicial review or leave to appeal were made out, particularly given the interlocutory nature of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: South 32 t/as Westcliff Colliery; Respondent: Nathan Ockers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Application for Leave to Appeal (civil Compensation) / Application for Judicial Review, Stay, and Leave to Appeal—all Dismissed at Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Application for judicial review, application for stay, and application for leave to appeal all dismissed. Applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Judicial Review, Leave to Reopen Case, Procedural Fairness, District Court Compensation Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Workers Compensation Appellate Practice Stay of Proceedings Judicial Review Leave to Reopen Case Procedural Fairness District Court Compensation Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South 32 t/as Westcliff Colliery

Applicant

Nathan Ockers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Application for Leave to Appeal (civil Compensation) / Application for Judicial Review, Stay, and Leave to Appeal—all Dismissed at Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judicial review of the primary judge's interlocutory decision to reopen the respondent's case was available
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge denied procedural fairness to the applicant by allowing the case to be reopened
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge erred in law in exercising discretion under the relevant statutes

Ratio Decidendi

No jurisdictional error was shown in the District Court's decision to allow reopening; no procedural unfairness or actual/apparent bias was present; errors, if any, concerned matters within jurisdiction; no grounds for judicial review or leave to appeal were made out, particularly given the interlocutory nature of the orders and the existence of a right to appeal from a final award.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review, application for stay, and application for leave to appeal all dismissed. Applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • Having expedited the hearing of the applicant's motion of 29 November 2017 otherwise dismiss the motion.
  • Dismiss the summons under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970.