Legal Research
Cases
Kraljevich v Lake View and Star Ltd

Kraljevich v Lake View and Star Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 16 November 1945 12 min read

Contents

On this page

70 CLR 647

KRALJEVICH

LAKE VIEW AND STAR LIMITED

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

WESTERN AUSTRALIA. Workers' Compensation (W.A.)-Statute-Retrospective operation-Redemption of

weekly payments-Application for redemption made before, but heard after, amending Act altering basis of assessment of lump Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1941 (W.A.) (No. 69 of 1912-No. 36 of 1941), 8. 6, First Schedule, clauses 17, 18-Workers' Compensation Act Amendment Act 1944 (W.A.) (No. 42 of 1944), 8. 4 (g).

The First Schedule to the Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1941 (W.A.) provided, by clause 17, for the redemption of weekly payments by payment of a lump sum and, by clause 18, for the assessment of the lump sum in accord- ance with an actuarial calculation. An amending Act altered the method of assessment so as to increase the lump sum to which a worker was entitled by way of redemption.

Held that the amendment did not apply to a case in which the accident in respect of which weekly payments were being made had occurred before, but an application for redemption was heard after, the date of the amendment.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Full Court) affirmed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

On 8th June 1943, the applicant worker suffered injury by accident, within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1941 (W.A.), which resulted in permanent incapacity. The employer admitted liability and made weekly payments accordingly. The worker lodged an application with the Local Court at Perth on 15th December 1944 for redemption of the weekly payments, but the

70 CLR 648

application did not come on for hearing until 1st March 1945. In the meantime, on 11th January 1945, the Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1941 (W.A.) had been amended by Act No. 42 of 1944. By the amending Act, clause 18 of the First Schedule, which provided for the assessment of a lump sum in accordance with an actuarial calculation, was repealed and re-enacted in such a form that the lump sum assessed in accordance with the new clause would be larger than that under the repealed clause. The worker contended that the new clause applied to the facts of his case, but the magis- trate of the Local Court rejected this contention, and, on appeal by the worker to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the Full Court affirmed the magistrate's decision.

From the decision of the Supreme Court, the worker appealed, by special leave, to the High Court.

J. Dunphy, for the appellant. The appellant is entitled to have the lump sum by way of redemption assessed in accordance with the new clause 18. That clause deals with the procedure of the court which makes the order for redemption. It is, therefore, within the rule that a statute relating to procedure applies to proceedings which are pending when it comes into force: See Coleman v. Shell Co. of Aus- tralia Ltd. 1. Section 16 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1918 (W.A.) does not affect the matter. It is…

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 Kraljevich v Lake View and Star Ltd 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: [1945] HCA 29
Decision Date: 16 November 1945

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning the retrospective application of an amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1941 (W.A.). The appellant, Mr. Kraljevich, suffered an injury in June 1943, leading to permanent incapacity and weekly payments from his employer, Lake View and Star Ltd. In December 1944, Mr. Kraljevich applied for redemption of these weekly payments by a lump sum. However, an amendment to the Act, assented to in January 1945, altered the method of calculating this lump sum, resulting in a higher amount for the worker. The application for redemption was heard in March 1945, after the amending Act came into force.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the amended provisions for calculating the redemption lump sum applied to Mr. Kraljevich's case, given that his injury occurred before the amendment, but his application for redemption was lodged and heard after its commencement. The court was required to determine if the amendment was procedural or substantive, and how the principle of statutory interpretation regarding retrospective operation, particularly in light of section 16 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1918 (W.A.), applied to vested rights and liabilities.

The High Court, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, held that the amendment did not apply to Mr. Kraljevich's case. The court reasoned that the amendment was not merely procedural but altered the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties by increasing the quantum of compensation payable. Applying the established principle that statutes are presumed not to operate retrospectively to impair existing rights or obligations unless expressly stated, the court found that the worker's right to compensation, as determined by the law in force at the time of the accident, was preserved. Section 16 of the Acts Interpretation Act was also considered to maintain the former provisions for assessing liabilities incurred prior to the repeal of the original clause.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal with costs. The lump sum payable to Mr. Kraljevich for the redemption of his weekly payments was to be assessed under the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act as it stood prior to the 1944 amendment.

Orders