Michael Adderley v SAS Trustee Corporation - [2022] NSWDC 149

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Michael Adderley v SAS Trustee Corporation [2022] NSWDC 149
Hearing dates: 28 April and 02 May 2022
Date of orders: 4 May 2022
Decision date: 04 May 2022
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:
See [52]

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE –– Plaintiff seeks to set aside a decision of the Defendant determining that he did not provide “notice” of his injuries as required by s 10(B)(2)(a) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) – Plaintiff claims to have injured his left knee in 1987 whilst training at the NSW police academy – Plaintiff claims the clinical record prepared by a nurse at the academy erroneously referred to the right knee as opposed to the left knee but was otherwise was to the effect of the prescribed form and constituted notice within s 10B(2)(a) (a1) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) – Requirements for valid notice considered – Notice found not to be in or to the effect of the prescribed form – Plaintiff has not established clinical note reference to left knee in 1987 as inaccurate.

Legislation Cited:
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) ss 10B, 21
Police Superannuation Regulation 1984 cl 6

Cases Cited:
Wesson v Jennings [1971] VR 83
Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227
Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga

Texts Cited:
Chad Jacobi, Interpretation Acts Origins and Meaning (Thomson Reuters, 2019)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Adderley (Plaintiff)
SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M. Weightman (Plaintiff)
Mr T. Ower (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Cardillo Gray Partners (Plaintiff)
SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)

File Number(s): RJ 107/21
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The Plaintiff (Michael Adderley) brings proceedings in this court pursuant to s 21 of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) (the 1906 Act) seeking to:

Set aside a decision of the Defendant dated 28 September 2020 determining that he did not provide notice of his injuries as required pursuant to s 10B(2)(a) of the 1906 Act; and

To substitute a decision that “The Plaintiff did notify the Commissioner of Police before the Plaintiff’s resignation and within 6 months of receiving the injury which caused the infirmity of the left knee injury.”

Consequential orders as to costs are also sought.^[1]
1. Statement of Claim at [1]-[4] under heading titled “Relief Claimed”.

Background

The Plaintiff was born on 26 January 1969 and is currently 53 years of age.
On 2 November 1987 he commenced as a trainee with NSW Police undertaking a 12-week course at the NSW Police Academy. The Plaintiff’s evidence was that as part of his training he was required to do running and aerobics daily. Three weeks into training he recalled sprinting and feeling something on his left leg. Following this, he recalled that he was sitting down and sought to stand up after a lecture and felt his left knee lock up. He proceeded to hop onto his right leg with his left leg out in the…

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.

Continue reading Michael Adderley v SAS Trustee Corporation

Details

AGLC: Michael Adderley v SAS Trustee Corporation [2022] NSWDC 149
Case: [2022] NSWDC 149
Decision Date: 04 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Michael Adderley brought an action against the SAS Trustee Corporation, contesting a decision that he had not provided the required "notice" of his injuries, as mandated by section 10(B)(2)(a) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW). Adderley alleged that he injured his left knee during his training at the NSW police academy in 1987, but claimed that the clinical record inaccurately referred to his right knee instead of his left knee. He argued that this discrepancy did not prevent the record from being in the effect of the prescribed form and, therefore, constituted valid notice under the statute.

The court was required to determine whether the clinical record that Adderley claimed constituted notice was in or to the effect of the prescribed form, and whether the reference to his right knee was an error. The central issue was whether the clinical record, despite its inaccuracy, satisfied the statutory requirements for valid notice. The court had to assess whether the discrepancy between the injured knee and the one recorded in the clinical note was a material error that invalidated the notice.

The court held that the clinical record did not meet the statutory requirements for valid notice. The court found that the reference to the right knee instead of the left knee was a material error, which meant that the notice was not in the prescribed form. Furthermore, the court concluded that Adderley had not established that the reference to his right knee in the clinical note was inaccurate. Therefore, the court dismissed Adderley's claim, finding that he had not satisfied the statutory requirements for notice.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed, and that the defendant, the SAS Trustee Corporation, was to recover its costs of the application from the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [52]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Michael Adderley v SAS Trustee Corporation [2022] NSWDC 149
Hearing dates:	28 April and 02 May 2022
Date of orders:	4 May 2022
Decision date:	04 May 2022
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:	See [52]
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE –– Plaintiff seeks to set aside a decision of the Defendant determining that he did not provide “notice” of his injuries as required by s 10(B)(2)(a) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) – Plaintiff claims to have injured his left knee in 1987 whilst training at the NSW police academy – Plaintiff claims the clinical record prepared by a nurse at the academy erroneously referred to the right knee as opposed to the left knee but was otherwise was to the effect of the prescribed form and constituted notice within s 10B(2)(a) (a1) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) – Requirements for valid notice considered – Notice found not to be in or to the effect of the prescribed form – Plaintiff has not established clinical note reference to left knee in 1987 as inaccurate.
Legislation Cited:	Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) ss 10B, 21 Police Superannuation Regulation 1984 cl 6
Cases Cited:	Wesson v Jennings [1971] VR 83 Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227 Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga
Texts Cited:	Chad Jacobi, Interpretation Acts Origins and Meaning (Thomson Reuters, 2019)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Michael Adderley (Plaintiff) SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M. Weightman (Plaintiff) Mr T. Ower (Defendant) Solicitors: Cardillo Gray Partners (Plaintiff) SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
File Number(s):	RJ 107/21
Publication restriction:	Nil