A Presidential member reviewing an Arbitrator's decision under s 352 of the WIM Act does not commit an error of law by treating material inconsistencies between a worker's written statements and oral evidence as significant, even where the Arbitrator found the worker to be a credible witness, provided the Presidential member is not rejecting the credibility finding but determining how to give effect to it. Whether the Abalos principle applies to such reviews, and whether a Presidential member must identify error before intervening, remain open questions, though the Court signalled doubt on both points.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.