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
Melides v Meat Carter Pty Ltd [2019] NSWWCCPD 48
State of NSW v Allen [2000] NSWCA 141; 20 NSWCCR 314
Texts Cited: Herzfeld and Prince, Interpretation, 2nd ed Thomson Reuters
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Meat Carter Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Steven Melides (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J Kirk SC with B Lim (Appellant)
B McManamey (Respondent)
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:
- 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
- AGLC
- Meat Carter Pty Ltd v Melides [2020] NSWCA 307
- Case
- [2020] NSWCA 307
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.