Legal Research
Cases
Goudappel v ADCO Constructions Pty Limited

Goudappel v ADCO Constructions Pty Limited

Case [2012] NSWWCCPD 60 22 October 2012

Type to search within this case.

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
REFERENCE OF A QUESTION OF LAW TO THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY THE PRESIDENT
*Status: High Court overturned decision of Court of Appeal - ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd v Goudappel [2014] HCA 18*
CITATION:		Goudappel v ADCO Constructions Pty Limited & anor [2012] NSWWCCPD 60
APPLICANT:		Ronald Goudappel
RESPONDENT:		ADCO Constructions Pty Limited
INSURER:		GIO General Limited
INTERVENER:		WorkCover Authority of NSW
FILE NUMBER:		7810/12
DATE OF DECISION:		22 October 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:		Question of Law; s 351 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 application of savings and transitional provisions of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 with respect to claims for lump sum compensation
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:		President Judge Keating
HEARING:		Oral
REPRESENTATION:		Applicant:	Mr L King SC with Mr L Morgan, instructed by LHD Lawyers
Respondent:	Mr A Bartley SC with Mr R Stanton, instructed by Rankin Nathan
Intervener:	Mr S Flett, for the WorkCover Authority of NSW
ORDERS MADE:		1. The answer to the question of law referred for determination is: The amendments to Division 4 of Part 3 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 introduced by Schedule 2 of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012, apply to claims for compensation pursuant to s 66 made on and after 19 June 2012, where a worker has made a claim for compensation of any type in respect of the same injury before 19 June 2012. 2. Costs reserved. I grant the parties liberty to apply within 14 days.

INTRODUCTION

This matter raises a question of law concerning the interpretation of the savings and transitional provisions of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 (the Amending Act) with respect to claims for lump sum compensation.

THE QUESTION OF LAW REFERRED FOR DETERMINATION

“Do the amendments to Division 4 of Part 3 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 introduced by Schedule 2 of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 apply to claims for compensation pursuant to s 66 made on and after 19 June 2012 where a worker has made a claim for compensation of any type in respect of the same injury before 19 June 2012?”

BACKGROUND TO THE REFERRAL OF THE QUESTION OF LAW

Mr Goudappel was employed by ADCO Constructions Pty Limited (ADCO) as the State Manager.
Whilst on a building site on 17 April 2010, a bundle of steel “purlins” fell from a forklift crushing his left foot and ankle. It is agreed that Mr Goudappel made a claim for compensation on 19 April 2010. An amended Application to Resolve a Dispute was filed, by consent, at the hearing to reflect that fact.
On 14 July 2011, Mr Goudappel was assessed by Dr James Bodel, Orthopaedic Surgeon, as having six per cent whole person impairment with respect to the injuries he sustained.
On 20 June 2012, Mr Goudappel’s solicitors made a claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WCA) for $8,250 representing six per cent whole person impairment…

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.

Continue reading Goudappel v ADCO Constructions Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Goudappel v ADCO Constructions Pty Limited [2012] NSWWCCPD 60
Case: [2012] NSWWCCPD 60
Decision Date: 22 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Goudappel v ADCO Constructions Pty Limited dealt with the interpretation and application of savings and transitional provisions in workers' compensation legislation. The plaintiff, Goudappel, sought lump sum compensation from the defendant, ADCO Constructions Pty Limited, following an injury sustained at work. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred on whether the savings and transitional provisions of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 applied to claims for lump sum compensation, particularly under section 351 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

The court was required to determine whether the savings and transitional provisions of the 2012 Act, which were intended to maintain continuity and fairness in the workers' compensation system, were applicable to claims for lump sum compensation. This involved interpreting the legislative language and assessing the intention of the legislature in enacting these provisions. The court also had to consider whether these provisions preserved existing rights and benefits for workers who had already suffered injuries before the amendment.

In its reasoning, the court found that the savings and transitional provisions of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 did apply to claims for lump sum compensation. The court examined the plain language of the provisions and the context in which they were enacted, concluding that the legislature intended to ensure that workers who were injured before the amendment would not lose out on benefits that were previously available. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining consistency and fairness in the workers' compensation system, thereby upholding the rights of injured workers. The decision was in favour of the plaintiff, ensuring that the savings and transitional provisions were applicable to the lump sum compensation claim.

Orders