BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Treby

[2018] WASCA 60

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Workers' Compensation
2. › Arbitration
3. › Appeal from arbitrator's decision
4. › Leave to appeal
5. › Whether question of law involved
6. › Preference of one medical opinion over competing opinion
7. › Whether open to arbitrator to rely on report
8. › Whether basis of opinion sufficiently disclosed
9. › Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), ss 5, 188, 213, 247, 254
1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Medical reports
4. › Probative value of expert opinion
5. › Whether report disclosed sufficient basis for opinion
6. › Proceedings where rules of evidence do not apply
1. Administrative Law
2. › Unreasonableness
3. › Wednesbury unreasonableness
4. › Whether reliance on medical report rendered decision unreasonable or irrational
5. › Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18
1. Appeal
2. › Question of law
3. › Distinction between errors of fact and errors of law
4. › Preference for one body of evidence over another as question of fact not law

Quick Take

An arbitrator's preference for one medical expert's opinion over another in workers' compensation proceedings is a finding of fact, not a question of law, and does not give rise to a right of appeal under s 247 of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA). A medical report based on an undisputed patient history, personal examination, and review of radiological investigations has probative value even if it does not provide extensive detail or analysis. Reliance on undisclosed epidemiological studies may properly be given less weight than a specialist opinion based on clinical examination and radiological evidence.