Meat Carter Pty Ltd v Melides

Case [2020] NSWCA 307


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Meat Carter Pty Ltd v Melides [2020] NSWCA 307
Hearing dates: 4 May 2020
Decision date: 26 November 2020
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Gleeson JA at [2];
White JA at [3]
Decision:

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the orders of the Acting Deputy President of 10 September 2019.

3. In lieu thereof order that the appeal from the orders of the Arbitrator made on 26 February 2019 be dismissed.

4. Order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

Catchwords:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Construction of Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) s 38A – Whether payment at special rate pursuant to s 38A payable from time of injury or from time the worker satisfies the definition of “worker with highest needs” – consideration of the defined term ‘worker with highest needs”

Legislation Cited:

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 9, 32A, 36, 37, 38A, 39, 59A, 60, 65, 82A

Workers Compensation Amendment Act 2015 (NSW), Sch 2

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 319, 321, 322A, 325, 353

Cases Cited:

Ansett Australia v Dale [2001] NSWCA 341; 22 NSWCCR 527

Borovac v Corporate Ventures Pty Ltd t/a New South Wales Department of Agriculture (1995) 12 NSWCCR 84

Hee v State Transit Authority of New South Wales (2019) 100 NSWLR 274; [2019] NSWCA 175

Hochbaum v RSM Building Services Pty Ltd; Whitton v Technical and Further Education Commission t/as TAFE NSW [2020] NSWCA 113

Melides v Meat Carter Pty Ltd [2019] NSWWCCPD 48

State of NSW v Allen [2000] NSWCA 141; 20 NSWCCR 314

TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Estate of Horne (1995) 36 NSWLR 630

Texts Cited:

Herzfeld and Prince, Interpretation, 2nd ed Thomson Reuters

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Meat Carter Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Steven Melides (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Kirk SC with B Lim (Appellant)
B McManamey (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Stiles Lawyers (Appellant)
Peninsula Law (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/301298
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Workers Compensation Commission of NSW
Jurisdiction:
n/a
Citation:

[2019] NSWWCCPD 48

Date of Decision:
10 September 2019
Before:
Parker SC ADP of WCC
File Number(s):
A 1-6032/18

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The appellant appeals from orders of a Presidential member of the Workers Compensation Commission who found that the respondent was entitled to payment at the special rate specified in s 38A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) from the time of injury (29 October 2014). Section 38A provides that if a worker with highest needs’ weekly payment of compensation under ss 36, 37 or 38 falls below a prescribed amount that amount is to be treated as the prescribed amount.

The appellant argues that although the respondent is entitled to payment at the special rate, that entitlement only arose from the time that the respondent satisfied the definition of “worker with highest needs” under s 32A. The respondent was assessed…

Continue reading Meat Carter Pty Ltd v Melides

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Meat Carter Pty Ltd v Melides [2020] NSWCA 307
Case
[2020] NSWCA 307
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Meat Carter Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision concerning the payment of workers' compensation benefits. The dispute centred on the interpretation of section 38A of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW), specifically regarding when payments at a "special rate" become payable to a worker who meets the definition of a "worker with highest needs". The court comprised Macfarlan, Gleeson, and White JJA.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the special rate of compensation payable under section 38A was to be calculated from the date of the worker's injury or from the date the worker satisfied the criteria to be classified as a "worker with highest needs". This required the court to consider the meaning and application of the defined term "worker with highest needs" within the context of the Act.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the entitlement to the special rate under section 38A arises only once a worker has been determined to be a "worker with highest needs". The court found that the Acting Deputy President had erred in concluding that the special rate was payable retrospectively from the date of injury. Instead, the court held that the entitlement to the special rate commences from the date the worker is assessed as meeting the definition of a "worker with highest needs". Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the previous orders were set aside, and the appeal from the Arbitrator's decision was dismissed, with the respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the orders of the Acting Deputy President of 10 September 2019.

3. In lieu thereof order that the appeal from the orders of the Arbitrator made on 26 February 2019 be dismissed.

4. Order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

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.