"1. The learned Compensation Magistrate erred in law in rejecting grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal in reliance upon Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139.
2. The learned Compensation Magistrate should have held that s 84ZN(2) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) gave the Appellant a right of appeal 'where a question of law is involved', and that Azzopardi was a decision on a differently worded appeal provision.
3. Further or alternatively, the learned Compensation Magistrate should have held that in any event the correct approach to the interpretation of the provision considered in that case was the approach of Kirby P at 151 B-G, supported as it is by the decisions of this Court in Summit Homes v Lucev (1996) 16 WAR 566 and Re Croser; ex parte Rutherford [2001] WASCA 422; (2001) 25 WAR 170, and not the conflicting approach of Glass and Samuels JJA.
4. Further or alternatively, the learned Compensation Magistrate should have held that the appeal from the Review Officer to the Compensation Magistrate's Court involved at least the following questions of law:
(a) whether the learned Review Officer had erred in law in failing to make, and set out in his reasons for decision, sufficient, alternatively sufficiently precise, findings of primary fact to discharge his obligation in law to make such findings, and to deliver sufficiently precise reasons for decision;
(b) whether, after observing that '... the other witnesses and indeed [the Respondent] ...' had given evidence that the 'medical practitioners' had formed their opinions based on an incorrect history, the learned Review Officer had erred in law:
(i) in failing to make (a) finding(s) to that effect, or, at the very least, in relation to that issue; and/or
(ii) in relying in part upon the medical evidence of Drs Ong and Harper, alternatively the medical evidence of Dr Harper, based as it was on that incorrect history;
(c) whether the evidence led before the Review Officer was reasonably capable of supporting the conclusion that Drs Ong and Harper, alternatively Dr Harper, had been given an accurate history;
(d) whether, after observing that '[n]one of the witnesses indicated that the volume of work [the Respondent] was required to undertake was excessive ...', the learned Review Officer had erred in law:
(i) in failing to make (a) finding(s) to that effect, or, at the very least, in relation to that issue; and/or
(ii) in ultimately concluding that the Respondent had suffered a 'disability' (bearing in mind that that conclusion was a conclusion as to whether the primary facts met a statutory description, and therefore involved a question of law).
5. The learned Compensation Magistrate should have held that the appeal from the Review Officer to the Compensation Magistrate's Court should be allowed, on the following basis:
(a) the learned Review Officer had erred in law in failing to make, and set out in his reasons for decision, sufficient, alternatively sufficiently precise, findings of primary fact to discharge his obligation in law to make such findings, and to deliver sufficiently precise reasons for decision, on the contested issue of how many times each day the Respondent had had to write out the names and addresses of prospective job applicants in the course of her employment with the Appellant; and/or
(b) after observing that '... the other witnesses and indeed [the Respondent] ...' had given evidence to the effect that the 'medical practitioners' had formed their opinions based on incorrect information, the learned Review Officer had erred in law:
(i) in failing to make (a) finding(s) to that effect, or, at the very least, in relation to that issue; and/or
(ii) in relying in part upon the medical evidence of Drs Ong and Harper, alternatively the medical evidence of Dr Harper, based as it was on that incorrect history; and/or
(c) the evidence led before the Review Officer was not reasonably capable of supporting the conclusion that Drs Ong and Harper, alternatively Dr Harper, had been given an accurate history, and the learned Review Officer had therefore erred in law in relying in part upon the medical evidence of Drs Ong and Harper, alternatively the medical evidence of Dr Harper; and/or
(d) after observing that '[n]one of the witnesses indicated that the volume of work [the Respondent] was required to undertake was excessive ...', the learned Review Officer had erred in law:
(i) in failing to make (a) finding(s) to that effect, or, at the very least, in relation to that issue; and/or
(ii) in ultimately concluding that the Respondent had suffered a 'disability' (bearing in mind that that conclusion was a conclusion as to whether the primary facts met a statutory description, and therefore involved a question of law)."