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
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 – DefendantRepresentation: Counsel:
P. O’Rourke – Plaintiff
T. Ower – Defendant
File Number(s): RJ55/19 Publication restriction: Nil.
Judgment
-
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.
-
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] NSWDC 925
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.