Laminex Group Pty Ltd v Catford - [2021] NTSC 92

CITATION: Laminex Group Pty Ltd v Catford [2021] NTSC 92

PARTIES: LAMINEX GROUP PTY LTD

v
CATFORD, Joanne

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:2021-00404-SC
DELIVERED:  30 November 2021
HEARING DATE:  31 May 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION – Entitlement to and liability for compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Preliminary requirements – Assessment and amount of compensation – Cessation of payments
Whether Notice of Decision cancelling payment of weekly benefits valid – Work Health Court fell into error of law by finding that Notice of Decision invalid – Finding that Notice of Decision valid not conclusive of the final result – Whether Work Health Court erred in law in determining worker’s ‘most profitable employment’ – Whether Work Health Court erred in law in dismissing the employer’s Counterclaim – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted to Work Health Court for rehearing.
Return to Work Act (NT) s 65, s 69, s 80, s 85, s 104, s 116
Work Health Administration Act 2011 (NT) s 14
Work Health Court Rules 1999 (NT) r 9.05
AAT Kings Tours Pty Ltd v Hughes (1994) 4 NTLR 185, Alexander v Gorey & Cole Holdings Pty Ltd (2001) 163 FLR 227, Alexander v Gorey & Cole Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 171 FLR 31, Barbaro v Leighton Constructors Pty Ltd (1980) 44 FLR 204, Cardiff Corporation v Hall [1911] 1 KB 1009, Collins Radio Constructors v Day (1998) 143 FLR 425, Comcare v Rawling (1993) 42 FCR 421, Davison v Totalisator Administration Board (1988) 56 NTR 8, Dickin v NT TAB Pty Ltd [2003] NTSC 119, Disability Services v Regan (1998) 8 NTLR 73, FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Southern Cross Exploration NL (1988) 165 CLR 268, Foresight Pty Ltd v Maddick (1991) 1 NTLR 209, Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421, Global Insulation Contractors (NSW) Pty Ltd v Keating [2012] NTSC 4, JH Constructions Pty Ltd v Davis (unreported, SCNT, 3 November 1989), Josephson v Walker (1914) 18 CLR 691, Ju Ju Nominees Pty Ltd v Carmichael (1999) 9 NTLR 1, Knight v. FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178, Lee v Macmahon Contractors Pty Ltd [2018] NTCA 7, Morrisey v Conaust Ltd (1991) 1 NTLR 183, Newton v Masonic Homes Inc [2009] NTSC 51, Nicolia v Commissioner of Railways (NSW) (1970) 45 ALJR 465, Quality Plumbing & Building Contractors Pty Ltd v Schloss [2015] NTSC 56, The Owners of the Ship "Shin Kobe Maru" v Empire Shipping Company Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:B O’Loughlin
Respondent:  M Grove
Solicitors:
Appellant:HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
Respondent:  Ward Keller
Judgment category classification:              B
Judgment ID Number:  GRA2122
Number of pages:  50

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Laminex Group Pty Ltd v Catford [2021] NTSC 92

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 Laminex Group Pty Ltd v Catford 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: [2021] NTSC 92
Decision Date: 30 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Laminex Group Pty Ltd v Catford, the dispute before the court centred on the employer's cancellation of weekly benefits under the Return to Work Act and the subsequent challenges by the worker. The matter was heard in the Work Health Court and subsequently appealed to a higher court. The primary issue was whether the Work Health Court correctly determined the validity of the employer's Notice of Decision cancelling the weekly benefits. The employer argued that the Work Health Court had erred in finding the Notice of Decision invalid and also challenged the Court's decision to dismiss the employer's Counterclaim.

The court considered several legal issues, including whether the Notice of Decision complied with statutory requirements, whether the Work Health Court had jurisdiction to hear the employer's Counterclaim, and whether the geographical location of the most profitable employment was a relevant consideration in determining the worker's compensation. The employer contended that the Work Health Court fell into an error of law by finding the Notice of Decision invalid, as it did not properly address the statutory grounds for cancellation. Furthermore, the employer argued that the Court was incorrect in dismissing the Counterclaim on jurisdictional and substantive grounds.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Work Health Court's determination regarding the validity of the Notice of Decision was flawed. The court held that the finding that the Notice of Decision was invalid was based on errors of law, specifically regarding the compliance with statutory provisions. The court clarified that the finding of invalidity was not conclusive of the final result of the dispute and that the matter required a rehearing by the Work Health Court. Additionally, the court found that the Work Health Court had misapplied the law in dismissing the employer's Counterclaim. The court held that the employer's geographical location argument was relevant and should have been considered in determining the most profitable employment available to the worker.

Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Work Health Court for rehearing. The court ordered that the Work Health Court reconsider the validity of the Notice of Decision and the employer's Counterclaim in light of the findings. The final orders directed that the matter be reheard by the Work Health Court, ensuring that all relevant legal principles and statutory requirements were properly applied.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

In response, the worker has filed a Notice of Contention contending:(a)that the Work Health Court’s determination that the Notice of Decision was invalid should be upheld on the basis that the evidence did not establish or substantiate any of the grounds provided in the Notice of Decision; and(b)that the Work Health Court’s determination to dismiss the employer’s Counterclaim should be upheld on the basis that:(i) the Work Health Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a counterclaim by an employer in proceedings commenced by a worker; and(ii) after the first 104 weeks of incapacity, the geographical location of the most profitable employment identified by an employer is not a relevant consideration in determining the most profitable employment ‘available’ within the meaning of ss 65(2) and (5) of the Return to Work Act.Notice of Decision The employer contends that the finding that the Notice of Decision was invalid was predicated on three errors of law. The first was the finding that the Notice did not comply with s 69(1)(b) of the Return to Work Act. The second was the finding that the certification from a medical practitioner did not comply with s 69(3) of the Return to Work Act. The third was the finding that the Notice as a whole did not comply with s 69(4) of the Return to Work Act. Section 69(1)(b) of the Return to Work Act relevantly provides:(1) Subject to this Subdivision, an amount of compensation under this Subdivision shall not be cancelled or reduced unless the worker to whom it is payable has been given:(a) …(b) a statement in the approved form:(i) setting out the reasons for the proposed cancellation or reduction;(ii) to the effect that, if the worker wishes to dispute the decision to cancel or reduce compensation, the worker may, within 90 days after receiving the statement, apply to the Authority to have the dispute referred to mediation;(iii)to the effect that, if mediation is unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, the worker may appeal to the Court against the decision to cancel or reduce compensation;(iv) to the effect that, if the worker wishes to appeal, the worker must lodge the appeal with the Court within 28 days after receiving a certificate issued by the mediator under section 103J(2);(v) to the effect that the worker may only appeal against the decision if an attempt has been made to resolve the dispute by mediation and that attempt has been unsuccessful; and(vi) to the effect that, despite subparagraphs (iv) and (v), the claimant may commence a proceeding for an interim determination under section 107 at any time after the claimant has applied to the Authority to have the dispute referred to mediation. The Notice of Decision which the employer gave the worker on 21 September 2018 was in the form approved by the Work Health Authority. So far as the question of appeal and mediation is concerned, that form contained the following pro forma statements (as opposed to content formulated by the employer for the purpose of this particular cancellation):Rights of AppealMEDIATION

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.