Cram Fluid Power Pty Ltd v Green

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, the applicant, Cram Fluid Power Pty Ltd, appealed against orders made by the Workers Compensation Commission. The dispute concerned the respondent worker's entitlement to claim lump sum compensation for permanent impairment under the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW) (the 1987 Act), particularly in light of amendments introduced on 19 June 2012 (the Critical Date). The core of the disagreement revolved around whether the worker's earlier claim for lump sum compensation, resolved prior to the Critical Date, precluded a further claim made after that date, given the introduction of a "one claim" limitation.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether a claim for lump sum compensation made before the Critical Date was distinct from a further claim made after it. The court also had to consider the effect of transitional provisions, specifically clause 15 of Schedule 6, Part 19H of the 1987 Act and clause 11 of Schedule 8 of the *Workers Compensation Regulation 2010* (NSW), on the application of the one-claim limitation to claims made on or after the Critical Date. Furthermore, the court examined whether section 66A(3)(c) of the 1987 Act permitted a further claim for lump sum compensation after the Critical Date, additional to that payable under a complying agreement made before that date, and what the meaning of "one claim" in section 66(1A) of the 1987 Act was in this context.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the one-claim limitation introduced by section 66(1A) of the 1987 Act operated on facts antecedent to the Critical Date. It held that the transitional provisions did not preserve an entitlement to make a further claim for lump sum compensation after the Critical Date if an earlier claim had already been made and resolved. The court found that the worker's earlier claim, having been resolved before the Critical Date, meant that the "one claim" limitation applied to any subsequent claim made after that date. Consequently, the worker had no entitlement to pursue a further claim for permanent impairment compensation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Commission below, and ordered that the respondent worker had no entitlement to pursue his claim for further permanent impairment compensation, dismissing his claim filed on 3 March 2014. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs.