UNITED DAIRIES v FELLETTI [1992] NSWCA 259

UNITED DAIRIES v FELLETTI [1992] NSWCA 259

No relevant procedural unfairness arose because the appellant did not request the medical witness be called nor seek adjournment; the award of compensation against the appellant was open to Judge Herkes on the evidence and did not lack an evidential foundation. The redemption under s15 of the 1926 Act and the transitional provisions did not prevent the worker from pursuing a separate claim under the 1987 Act against the appellant; no election or inconsistent assertion of rights occurred.

Parties
Appellant: United Dairies Ltd; Worker/respondent: Wayne Felletti; First Employer/respondent: Bukpitt and Cavanagh Pty Ltd; Second Employer/respondent: Wyong Group Apprentices Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 1992
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Transitional Provisions, Redemption of Compensation, Jurisdiction, Admission of Evidence
Workers' Compensation Procedural Fairness Transitional Provisions Redemption of Compensation Jurisdiction Admission of Evidence

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United Dairies Ltd

Appellant

Wayne Felletti

Worker/respondent

Bukpitt and Cavanagh Pty Ltd

First Employer/respondent

Wyong Group Apprentices Ltd

Second Employer/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural unfairness in admission and use of a medical report constituted an error of law requiring intervention
  2. 2 Jurisdictional effect of redemption of compensation under transitional provisions of Workers Compensation Act 1987
  3. 3 Whether any election or inconsistent assertion of rights occurred preventing compensation claim against third employer

Ratio Decidendi

No relevant procedural unfairness arose because the appellant did not request the medical witness be called nor seek adjournment; the award of compensation against the appellant was open to Judge Herkes on the evidence and did not lack an evidential foundation. The redemption under s15 of the 1926 Act and the transitional provisions did not prevent the worker from pursuing a separate claim under the 1987 Act against the appellant; no election or inconsistent assertion of rights occurred.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay the costs of all respondents to the appeal