Catlow v Accident Compensation Commission - [1989] HCATrans 95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry

Melbourne No M75 of 1988
B e t w e e n -
GORDON CATLOW

Appellant

and
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION
COMMISSION

Respondent

BRENNAN ACJ
DEANE J
DAWSON J
GAUDRON J

McHUGH J

Catlow(2)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 2 MAY 1989, AT 10.17 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

C2T 1/1/JM 1 2/5/89

MR M.E.J. BLACK, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear

with my learned friend, MR C. MAXWELL for

the appellant. (instructed by Maurice Blackburn & Co)

MR J.D. PHILLIPS, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear

with my learned friend, MR R.P. GORDON for
the respondent. (instructed by Solicitor,
Accident Compensation Corrnnission)

BRENNAN ACJ: Yes, Mr Black?

MR BLACK: If the Court pleases, I would hand to the Court

an outline of the appellant's submissions.

BRENNAN ACJ: Yes, Mr Black?

MR BLACK: If the Court pleases, this is an appeal from the

Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria
which decided adversely to the appellant,
who was a worker within the meaning of the
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT, a question of law
that came before it from the Accident Compensation

Tribunal. The appeal involves the interpretation
of one of the central provisions of the still
relatively new Victorian Act and that provision
is section 95 which provides how what are
termed pre-accident average weekly earnings
are to be calculated for the purpose of
calculating weekly payments of compensation.
(Continued on page 3)

C2T2/2/JM	2	2/5/89
Catlow( 2)

MR BLACK (continuing): It may be of assistance to the

Court if I-·spend perhaps no more than five
minutes outlining the general structure of the
Act. It is somewhat different to the Acts that
the Court has had occasion to consider in the
past, although in many essential elements it
introduces nothing new.
Legislation was introduced in 1985 and

I think the Court has reprint No 1 which is
a little later than the time relevant to this
appeal but the amendments are clearly identified
and the Court will find the first reprint the

convenient Act to use. The Act to a large extent
embodies familiar concepts, such as "worker",
"employer" and "injury", all of which are defined,
but it does involve quite considerable departures
from the old scheme of things, particularly in

relation to funding and administration. Now,
instead of the liability being imposed directly
upon the employer, who was required to insure,
in general terms the bulk of the liability is
assumed by the Accident Compensation Commission
itself.
The Act contains the classical definitions

of "worker", some traditional extensions to that
concept and also some new extensions borrowed
from pay-roll tax legislation which have caused
their own difficulties but not ones that will
trouble this Court. There are some very complicated

sections in it. The central compensation provision
is section 82 - it is on page 65 of the Court's
print - which provides that:

If there is caused to a worker

an…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Catlow v Accident Compensation Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1989] HCATrans 95
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Catlow, appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned the interpretation of section 95 of the Accident Compensation Act, which governs the calculation of pre-accident average weekly earnings for the purpose of determining weekly compensation payments. The matter had previously been before the Accident Compensation Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the correct method for calculating a worker's pre-accident average weekly earnings under section 95 of the Accident Compensation Act. This calculation is fundamental to determining the quantum of weekly payments of compensation to which an injured worker is entitled.

The appellant argued that the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria had erred in its interpretation of section 95. The Act, introduced in 1985, established a scheme where the Accident Compensation Commission assumed the bulk of liability for worker's compensation, departing from the previous system of direct employer liability and insurance. The appeal focused on the specific provisions within Part IV of the Act, which deals with the payment of compensation, and how the pre-accident earnings were to be ascertained for the purpose of calculating entitlements.

Orders