Heise v Employers Mutual Limited - [2022] NSWCA 283

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Heise v Employers Mutual Limited [2022] NSWCA 283
Hearing dates: 21 November 2022
Date of orders: 21 December 2022
Decision date: 21 December 2022
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1]
Kirk JA at [2]
Griffiths AJA at [80]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal is granted.
(2) The appellant is to file a notice of appeal within 28 days in terms consistent with the draft amended notice of appeal.
(3) The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:
WORKERS COMPENSATION — Claim for compensation — Claim made by former police officer — Claim made on company engaged by Self Insurance Corporation as claims manager to assess claims under Government managed fund schemes — Claim not determined within relevant period — Private prosecution of company by claimant — Whether criminal liability extends to parties engaged to manage and assess claims under Government managed fund schemes

Legislation Cited:
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 21(1)
NSW Self Insurance Corporation Act 2004 (NSW), ss 7(2), 8(1)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 2A, 3, 140, 155, 211B
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 4(1), 7(1), 60, 61(2)(a), 61(2)(c), 108(2)(c), 154G-M, 234, 235D(6), 250, 254, 260, 264, 274, 279, 281, 283, 288, 311, 376

Cases Cited:
Ballas v Dept of Education (State of NSW) (2020) 102 NSWLR 783; [2020] NSWCA 86
Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1; [1990] HCA 24
CFMEU v Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd (2013) 248 CLR 619; [2013] HCA 36
Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Cottle (2022) 96 ALJR 304; [2022] HCA 7
Employers Mutual Limited v Heise [2018] NSWSC 1842
Employers Mutual Limited v Heise [2022] NSWSC 465
Fletcher International Exports Pty Ltd v Barrow [2007] NSWCA 244
Kempe v Complete Community Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1095
Northern Land Council v Quall (2020) 271 CLR 394; [2020] HCA 33
State Authorities Superannuation Board v Commissioner of State Taxation for Western Australia (1996) 189 CLR 253; [1996] HCA
Tan v National Australia Bank Ltd (2008) 6 DDCR 363; [2008] NSWCA 198
Telstra v Worthing (1999) 197 CLR 61; [1999] HCA 12

Texts Cited:
NSW Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates, 29 March 2001 at 12881
Workers Compensation Guidelines

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Julie Heise (Applicant)
Employers Mutual Limited (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:

B Walker SC and M Weightman (Applicant)
G Watson SC and D Tang (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Cardillo Gray Partners (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/140658
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Citation:

Employers Mutual Limited v Heise [2022] NSWSC 465

Date of Decision:

19 April 2022

Before:

Adamson J

File Number(s):

2021/273126

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant was a former police officer injured in connection with her duties. She made a claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment. The claim was sent to the respondent, a company retained to act on…

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 Heise v Employers Mutual Limited 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: [2022] NSWCA 283
Decision Date: 21 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Heise, a former police officer, brought a private prosecution against Employers Mutual Limited, a company engaged by the Self Insurance Corporation to manage and assess claims under government-managed fund schemes. The dispute arose because Heise's claim for compensation was not determined within the relevant statutory period. Heise sought to establish criminal liability on the part of Employers Mutual Limited for this failure. The matter came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether a company engaged as a claims manager for government-managed fund schemes could be held criminally liable for failing to determine a claim within the prescribed timeframe, as stipulated by relevant legislation. This required the court to consider the scope of criminal responsibility for entities acting in such a capacity and the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the determination of workers' compensation claims.

The Full Court granted leave to appeal. In its decision, the Court dismissed the appeal with costs. The specific reasoning for the dismissal is not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the Court did not find sufficient grounds to overturn the lower court's decision or to establish the criminal liability of Employers Mutual Limited in this instance.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Leave to appeal is granted.

(2) The appellant is to file a notice of appeal within 28 days in terms consistent with the draft amended notice of appeal.

(3) The appeal is dismissed 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Heise v Employers Mutual Limited [2022] NSWCA 283
Hearing dates:	21 November 2022
Date of orders:	21 December 2022
Decision date:	21 December 2022
Before:	Mitchelmore JA at [1] Kirk JA at [2] Griffiths AJA at [80]
Decision:	(1) Leave to appeal is granted. (2) The appellant is to file a notice of appeal within 28 days in terms consistent with the draft amended notice of appeal. (3) The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Catchwords:	WORKERS COMPENSATION — Claim for compensation — Claim made by former police officer — Claim made on company engaged by Self Insurance Corporation as claims manager to assess claims under Government managed fund schemes — Claim not determined within relevant period — Private prosecution of company by claimant — Whether criminal liability extends to parties engaged to manage and assess claims under Government managed fund schemes
Legislation Cited:	Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 21(1) NSW Self Insurance Corporation Act 2004 (NSW), ss 7(2), 8(1) Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 2A, 3, 140, 155, 211B Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 4(1), 7(1), 60, 61(2)(a), 61(2)(c), 108(2)(c), 154G-M, 234, 235D(6), 250, 254, 260, 264, 274, 279, 281, 283, 288, 311, 376
Cases Cited:	Ballas v Dept of Education (State of NSW) (2020) 102 NSWLR 783; [2020] NSWCA 86 Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1; [1990] HCA 24 CFMEU v Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd (2013) 248 CLR 619; [2013] HCA 36 Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Cottle (2022) 96 ALJR 304; [2022] HCA 7 Employers Mutual Limited v Heise [2018] NSWSC 1842 Employers Mutual Limited v Heise [2022] NSWSC 465 Fletcher International Exports Pty Ltd v Barrow [2007] NSWCA 244 Kempe v Complete Community Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1095 Northern Land Council v Quall (2020) 271 CLR 394; [2020] HCA 33 State Authorities Superannuation Board v Commissioner of State Taxation for Western Australia (1996) 189 CLR 253; [1996] HCA Tan v National Australia Bank Ltd (2008) 6 DDCR 363; [2008] NSWCA 198 Telstra v Worthing (1999) 197 CLR 61; [1999] HCA 12
Texts Cited:	NSW Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates, 29 March 2001 at 12881 Workers Compensation Guidelines
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Julie Heise (Applicant) Employers Mutual Limited (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: B Walker SC and M Weightman (Applicant) G Watson SC and D Tang (Respondent) Solicitors: Cardillo Gray Partners (Applicant) HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2022/140658
Publication restriction:	Nil
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Common Law Citation: Employers Mutual Limited v Heise [2022] NSWSC 465 Date of Decision: 19 April 2022 Before: Adamson J File Number(s): 2021/273126