Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited v Dollisson [2020] NSWCA 58 Hearing dates: 18 November 2019; submissions 26 November 2019 Date of orders: 31 March 2020 Decision date: 31 March 2020 Before: Bell ACJ at [1]; Macfarlan JA at [62]; Emmett AJA at [63] Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Dismiss appeal with costs.Catchwords: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – whether reference to “compensation” in s 134AB(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) is a reference to compensation under that Act or to compensation whether or not awarded under the Act or the Act of some other state or territory – expressio unius reasoning inappropriate where dealing with interpretation of a “patchwork” statute.
WORKERS COMPENSATION – whether worker who was injured in Victoria but was not entitled to compensation under Victorian workers compensation legislation was nevertheless required to pass through statutory gateways under Victorian legislation when seeking common law damages – where worker had received compensation under NSW workers compensation scheme – whether reference to “compensation” in s 134AB(1) of Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) is a reference to compensation under that Act or to compensation whether awarded under that Act or the Act of some other state or territory.Legislation Cited: Accident Compensation (Common Law and Benefits) Act 2000 (Vic) s 18
Accident Compensation (Further Amendment) Act 1992 (Vic)
Accident Compensation (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act 1997 (Vic) ss 1(b), 45, 47(1)
Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993 (Vic) s 7
Accident Compensation (WorkCover) Act 1992 (Vic) s 46
Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) ss 3, 4(4), 5AA(2), 18, 19, 20, 80, 82, 82C(1), 84, 84B, 85, 86(1), 88(1), 91(3AAA), 91A(1), 92(1), 92A(3), 92B(2), 92D(4), 92D(5), 93, 97(4), 97(4B), 98A(1), 98C(1), 98E(1), 99(1), 99A(1), 103A(1), 104B, 114F(3), 116, 117, 123B, 125, 125A, 125B, 126(3), 127(1), 129D(4), 129MA-129MF, 129N(1), 130(1)(c), 134A, 134AA-134AGB, 135, 135A, 138B(1), 138B(3), Part I, Part II, Part III Divs 1-3, Pt IV Divs 1, 2A, 5, Div 6AB, Div 8A, Div 9
Accident Compensation and Transport Accident Acts (Amendment) Act 2003 (Vic)
Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) ss 35, 48
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 80
Juries Act 2000 (Vic) s 55
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) ss 27A, 27D, 27L, 27N
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) s 10(1A)
Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW)
Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic) ss 1, 11(e), 35(1), 93
Workers Compensation Act 1958 (Vic)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) s 9AA
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) s 624(1)
Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) Part IIICases Cited: Balog v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1990) 169 CLR 625; [1990] HCA 28
Barwon Spinners Pty Ltd v Podolak (2005) 14 VR 622; [2005] VSCA 33
Berowra Holdings Pty Ltd v Gordon (2006) 225 CLR 364; [2006] HCA 32
Coco v R (1994) 179 CLR 427; [1994] HCA 15
Colquhoun v Brooks (1888) 21 QBD 52
Continue reading Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited v Dollisson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited v Dollisson [2020] NSWCA 58
- Case
- [2020] NSWCA 58
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited (ARTC) appealed to the Court of Appeal of Victoria against a decision concerning the entitlement of Mr. Dollisson to pursue common law damages. Mr. Dollisson had sustained injuries in Victoria but was not eligible for compensation under Victoria's workers compensation legislation, having received compensation under the New South Wales workers compensation scheme. The central dispute revolved around the interpretation of section 134AB(1) of the *Accident Compensation Act 1985* (Vic), which governs the ability of an injured worker to claim common law damages.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the term "compensation" as used in section 134AB(1) of the *Accident Compensation Act 1985* (Vic) referred exclusively to compensation awarded under that Victorian Act, or if it encompassed compensation received under the workers compensation legislation of any Australian state or territory. This interpretation was critical to determining whether Mr. Dollisson was required to satisfy the statutory gateways established by the Victorian Act before he could seek common law damages, despite his compensation being sourced from New South Wales.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the *Accident Compensation Act 1985* (Vic) should be viewed as a "patchwork" statute, reflecting amendments and additions over time. In this context, the Court held that applying the principle of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius* (the express mention of one thing excludes others) to interpret the word "compensation" was inappropriate. Instead, the Court concluded that the reference to "compensation" in section 134AB(1) was intended to include compensation received under the workers compensation legislation of any Australian state or territory, not solely compensation under the Victorian Act. Consequently, the Court found that Mr. Dollisson was not required to pass through the statutory gateways under the Victorian Act.
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal, ordering the appellant, ARTC, to pay Mr. Dollisson's costs.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the term "compensation" as used in section 134AB(1) of the *Accident Compensation Act 1985* (Vic) referred exclusively to compensation awarded under that Victorian Act, or if it encompassed compensation received under the workers compensation legislation of any Australian state or territory. This interpretation was critical to determining whether Mr. Dollisson was required to satisfy the statutory gateways established by the Victorian Act before he could seek common law damages, despite his compensation being sourced from New South Wales.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the *Accident Compensation Act 1985* (Vic) should be viewed as a "patchwork" statute, reflecting amendments and additions over time. In this context, the Court held that applying the principle of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius* (the express mention of one thing excludes others) to interpret the word "compensation" was inappropriate. Instead, the Court concluded that the reference to "compensation" in section 134AB(1) was intended to include compensation received under the workers compensation legislation of any Australian state or territory, not solely compensation under the Victorian Act. Consequently, the Court found that Mr. Dollisson was not required to pass through the statutory gateways under the Victorian Act.
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal, ordering the appellant, ARTC, to pay Mr. Dollisson's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Dismiss appeal with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.