Hickson v Goodman Fielder Ltd

The case of *Hickson v Goodman Fielder Ltd* concerned a dispute over the recovery of workers' compensation payments. The worker, Ms Hickson, had suffered an injury and received workers' compensation. She subsequently brought a damages claim against a third party, Goodman Fielder Ltd, which was settled. Goodman Fielder Ltd sought to recover the workers' compensation payments made to Ms Hickson pursuant to section 151Z(1)(b) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW). The central issue was whether section 10(2) of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965* (NSW) operated to reduce the amount Goodman Fielder Ltd was entitled to recover, by reason of Ms Hickson's contributory negligence, in circumstances where her damages claim had been settled rather than litigated to judgment.

The High Court of Australia was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether section 10(2) of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965* (NSW) applied to damages recovered by way of settlement, as opposed to damages awarded after a trial. Secondly, the Court needed to ascertain whether, if section 10(2) did apply, the reduction in the repayment amount should be proportionate to the worker's contributory negligence or a specific amount. The interpretation of the phrases "damages recoverable" and "to the same extent" within the relevant legislation was crucial to this determination.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that section 10(2) of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965* (NSW) was intended to operate in situations where a worker's damages claim was settled. The Court held that the phrase "damages recoverable" in section 151Z(1)(b) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW) referred to the amount of damages that would have been recoverable had the claim proceeded to judgment, taking into account any contributory negligence. Therefore, the reduction under section 10(2) was to be applied to the amount Goodman Fielder Ltd sought to recover, reflecting the proportion of contributory negligence. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal with costs, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made on 24 April 2008. In lieu of those orders, the High Court ordered that the appeal to the Court of Appeal be dismissed with costs.