Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Goudappel v ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 94 Hearing dates: 28 March 2013 Decision date: 29 April 2013 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
Beazley P at [2];
Basten JA at [3]Decision: (1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the decision of the President of the Workers Compensation Commission answering the following question,
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?
(2) Allow the appeal and set aside the answer given in the Commission on 22 October 2012.
(3) Answer the question as follows:
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 do not apply to claims for compensation pursuant to s 66 which are made before 19 June 2012 in respect of an injury that results in permanent impairment, whether or not the claim specifically sought compensation under s 66 or s 67 of the 1987 Act.
(4) Order that the respondent pay the applicant's costs in this Court.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: WORKERS' COMPENSATION - meaning of "claim for compensation" - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), Sch 6, Pt 19H, cl 15 - whether "claim for compensation" referred to a claim for compensation generally or a claim specifically for lump sum compensation - where clause relates to amendments to lump sum compensation entitlements - where no statutory requirement to make a separate claim for lump sum compensation
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - whether Sch 6 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) permitted regulations to prejudice accrued rights - whether any express intention or necessary implication that Sch 6 created such a power - where Sch 6, Pt 20, cl 1(3) precluded regulations from prejudicing rights accrued before publication of regulation in Gazette - where Sch 6, Pt 19H, cl 5 purported to limit operation of Pt 20, cl 1(3)
WORKERS COMPENSATION - whether Sch 6 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) permitted regulations to prejudice accrued rights - whether any express intention or necessary implication that Sch 6 created such a power
WORKERS COMPENSATION - when right to compensation for permanent impairment accrues - when worker who receives injury resulting in permanent impairment…
Continue reading Goudappel v ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Goudappel v ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 94
- Case
- [2013] NSWCA 94
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were: first, the interpretation of "claim for compensation" within Schedule 6, Part 19H, clause 15 of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987*, and whether it referred to a general claim or a specific claim for lump sum compensation; and second, whether Schedule 6 of the Act permitted regulations to prejudice accrued rights, particularly in light of clause 1(3) of Part 20, which precluded regulations from prejudicing rights accrued before their gazettal, and clause 5 of Part 19H, which purported to limit the operation of clause 1(3). The court also considered when a worker becomes "entitled to receive" compensation for permanent impairment under section 66 of the Act.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the term "claim for compensation" in clause 15 of Schedule 6, Part 19H, referred to a claim for compensation generally, not a specific claim for lump sum compensation. It found that there was no statutory requirement for a separate claim for lump sum compensation. Furthermore, the court determined that Schedule 6 of the Act did not create an express intention or necessary implication that regulations could prejudice accrued rights, and that clause 1(3) of Part 20 remained operative. Consequently, the amendments introduced by Schedule 2 of the *Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012* did not apply to claims for compensation under section 66 made before 19 June 2012, irrespective of whether the claim specifically sought compensation under section 66 or 67, or whether a general claim had been lodged prior to that date.
The Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the decision of the Workers Compensation Commission. The court answered the question posed by the Commission in the negative, holding that the amendments did not apply to claims made before 19 June 2012 in respect of an injury resulting in permanent impairment. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the decision of the President of the Workers Compensation Commission answering the following question,
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?
(2) Allow the appeal and set aside the answer given in the Commission on 22 October 2012.
(3) Answer the question as follows:
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 do not apply to claims for compensation pursuant to s 66 which are made before 19 June 2012 in respect of an injury that results in permanent impairment, whether or not the claim specifically sought compensation under s 66 or s 67 of the 1987 Act.
(4) Order that the respondent pay the applicant's costs in this Court.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.