Nancy Jean Errington v Target Australia Pty Ltd No. SCGRG 95/1034 Judgment No. 5332 Number of Pages 10 Workers' Compensation (1995) 65 Sasr 378

In the case of Nancy Jean Errington v Target Australia Pty Ltd, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia considered whether the plaintiff, who had received workers' compensation, could claim additional damages from the employer for injuries sustained due to the employer's negligence as an occupier of the premises. The court examined the applicability of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (WR and C Act) to the employer's liability as an occupier. The key legal issue was whether the employer's liability as an occupier was restricted by the provisions of s54 of the WR and C Act, which limits the employer's liability to damages for non-economic loss.

The court concluded that s54(1) of the WR and C Act, which restricts the employer's liability to the compensation provided by the Act and common law damages for non-economic loss, applied to the employer's liability as an occupier. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the employer's liability as an occupier should be distinguished from the employer's liability under the Act. The court found that the language of s54(1) and the overall policy of the WR and C Act, which aims to create a comprehensive compensation regime for employees, supported the conclusion that the employer's liability as an occupier was also restricted by the Act.

The court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of the statutory language and the legislative policy underlying the WR and C Act. The court held that the phrase "arising from employment" in s54(1) qualified "compensable disability" and not the word "liability", meaning that the employer's liability as an occupier was subject to the restrictions of the Act. The court also noted the extraterritorial effect and the paramountcy of s54 as intended by Parliament, which reinforced the conclusion that the employer's liability as an occupier was restricted by the Act.

The final orders of the court were that the reserved question should be answered in the negative, and the plaintiff was not entitled to damages in respect of the defendant's liability as an occupier, unrestricted by the provisions of s54 of the WR and C Act. The court's decision aligned with the legislative policy of the Act to provide a comprehensive compensation regime for employees and to limit the employer's liability to the compensation provided by the Act and common law damages for non-economic loss.