Johnson v SAS Trustee Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 85 min read

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Johnson v SAS Trustee Corporation [2019] NSWDC 925
Hearing dates: 4-8 November 2019
Date of orders: 8 November 2019
Decision date: 08 November 2019
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

Confirm Decision of the Defendant

Catchwords:

POLICE SUPERANNUATION

P was a member of NSW Police from 19 December 1986 until he resigned on 28 August 2002. He made an application to D for a Hurt on Duty (HOD) superannuation allowance on 17 October 2016, 14 years later. On 28 February 2018, D determined that P had not given notice to Commissioner of Police (COP) of the injury giving rise to the claimed infirmities of chronic PTSD and major depression. P asked the Court to make a different determination of that issue and to find that at the time of his resignation P was suffering from the infirmities alleged. Held: Court could only determine the first issue but not the second. The second issue had not been decided by D and the Court could only make a determination to either confirm or set aside a prior decision of D. Obiter: it is preferable for D to determine both issues at the one time.

Legislation Cited:

Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906

Workers Compensation Act 1987

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1925 (UK)

Workplace Injury Management Act and Workers Compensation Act 1998

Cases Cited:

Fenton v Thorley [1903] AC443; (1903) 5WCC1

Lyons v Master Builders Association of New South Wales Pty Ltd (2003) 25 NSWCCR 422

Page v Commissioner of Police (No 2) [2012] NSWDC 137

SAS Trustee Corporation v Woollard [2014] NSWCA 75

Zinc Corporation Limited v Scarce (1995) 12 NSWCCR 566

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Russell Leigh Johnson – Plaintiff
SAS Trustee Corporation – Defendant
Representation: Counsel:
P. O’Rourke – Plaintiff
T. Ower – Defendant
File Number(s): RJ55/19
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff is a former senior constable of police. He was attested as a probationary constable of police on 19 December 1986, and thereupon became a contributor to the Police Superannuation Fund established by the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 ("the Act"). He was attested as a constable of police on 19 December 1987. On 19 December 1991 he was appointed as a constable first class. In June 1995 he was appointed as a senior constable of police, although the evidence does not establish the exact date of that appointment. On 30 July 2002 the plaintiff submitted his resignation from the New South Wales Police Force. That resignation came into effect on 28 August 2002. On 17 October 2016, 14 years after he submitted his resignation from the Police Force, the plaintiff made an application to the defendant for a superannuation allowance under the Act.

  2. A copy of the Application for a Hurt On Duty Pension by the plaintiff is exhibit TT. The plaintiff was asked what medical conditions causing incapacity for police duties were claimed. The plaintiff provided two medical conditions. They are chronic post-traumatic stress disorder…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Johnson v SAS Trustee Corporation 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
[2019] NSWDC 925
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Johnson v SAS Trustee Corporation, the plaintiff, a former member of the NSW Police, applied for a Hurt on Duty (HOD) superannuation allowance on 17 October 2016, fourteen years after his resignation from the force on 28 August 2002. The defendant, the SAS Trustee Corporation, denied the application on 28 February 2018, finding that the plaintiff had not notified the Commissioner of Police of the injury that gave rise to the claimed infirmities of chronic PTSD and major depression. The plaintiff sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that the defendant had erred in its determination and asking the Court to find that the plaintiff was suffering from the alleged infirmities at the time of resignation.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant had correctly found that the plaintiff had not notified the Commissioner of Police of the injury and whether the plaintiff was suffering from the alleged infirmities at the time of resignation. The court held that it could only determine the first issue but not the second, as the second issue had not been decided by the defendant. The court explained that it could only make a determination to either confirm or set aside a prior decision of the defendant. The court noted that it was preferable for the defendant to determine both issues at the one time.

The court confirmed the decision of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff had not notified the Commissioner of Police of the injury. The court held that the plaintiff's application for judicial review should be dismissed, and that the decision of the defendant should be confirmed. The court noted that it was not appropriate for it to determine the second issue, as this had not been decided by the defendant. The court also noted that it was preferable for the defendant to determine both issues at the one time. The final order of the court was to confirm the decision of the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Confirm Decision of the Defendant

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.