ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd v Goudappel

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning Mr Goudappel's entitlement to permanent impairment compensation under the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW). Mr Goudappel had suffered a workplace injury in April 2010, and subsequently made a claim for compensation. Amendments to the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW) introduced a threshold for permanent impairment compensation, which the employer argued extinguished Mr Goudappel's entitlement due to a transitional regulation. The Court of Appeal had found this regulation invalid to the extent it prejudicially affected Mr Goudappel's accrued rights.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether a transitional regulation made pursuant to the *Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012* (NSW) validly extinguished Mr Goudappel's entitlement to permanent impairment compensation, and if so, whether that regulation was within the scope of the legislative power conferred upon it. Specifically, the Court had to determine the effect of clause 11 of Schedule 8 to the *Workers Compensation Regulation 2010* (NSW) on claims made before the commencement of the amending Act, and whether this regulation could override accrued rights.

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the transitional regulation was valid and did extinguish Mr Goudappel's entitlement. The Court reasoned that the amending Act, through its savings and transitional provisions and the subsequent regulation, intended to apply the new threshold for permanent impairment compensation to claims made after 19 June 2012, even if an initial claim for compensation of any type had been made prior to that date. The Court found that Mr Goudappel's initial claim in April 2010 did not specifically seek compensation under section 66 of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW), and therefore, the transitional regulation validly applied the amended provisions to his claim, thereby extinguishing his entitlement to lump sum compensation. The Court therefore set aside the order of the Court of Appeal and answered the referred question of law in a manner that upheld the validity and effect of the transitional regulation.