Knight v The State of South Australia

The case of *Knight v The State of South Australia* concerned a dispute over the calculation of average weekly earnings for a teacher who suffered a recurrence of a psychiatric injury. The appellant, a teacher, had previously received workers' compensation for a psychiatric injury in 2011 and was on reduced hours and receiving "top-up" payments when she suffered a recurrence of the same injury in April 2017. A dispute arose regarding the correct calculation of her average weekly earnings under the relevant Act for the 2017 injury. The matter proceeded to the Supreme Court of South Australia on appeal from the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Court were whether payments of workers' compensation should be considered as amounts paid while a worker is on leave for the purposes of section 5(3) of the Act, and whether the phrase "a work injury" in section 5(9) of the Act referred only to the injury for which average weekly earnings were being calculated, or if it extended to a prior injury. These issues arose from the appellant's contention that her "top-up" payments should be included in her average weekly earnings calculation and that the prior injury should be considered under section 5(9).

The Court, in its reasoning, affirmed the decision of the Full Bench. It held that payments of workers' compensation are not to be taken into account as amounts paid while a worker is on leave, relying on established precedent that such payments are not "leave" in any commonly understood industrial sense. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the term "a work injury" in section 5(9) refers specifically to the injury for which average weekly earnings are being determined and does not encompass a prior injury. This interpretation was supported by a textual analysis of the Act, considering the use of the present tense and the absence of reference to prior injuries, as well as a purposive approach aimed at preventing the indefinite extension of weekly payment entitlements.

The Court granted permission to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the Full Bench's conclusions on both legal issues.