Nominal Defendant v Hi-Light Industries Pty Limited; the Nominal Defendant v New South Wales

In *Nominal Defendant v Hi-Light Industries Pty Limited; the Nominal Defendant v New South Wales*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered appeals concerning the ability of employers to recover workers' compensation payments from the Nominal Defendant under section 151Z(1)(d) of the *Workers' Compensation Act 1987* (NSW) and whether the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW) precluded such actions. The appeals arose from decisions that allowed such recovery actions.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether a recovery action under section 151Z(1)(d) of the *Workers' Compensation Act 1987* (NSW) could be brought against the Nominal Defendant, and whether section 37 of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW) operated as a complete code that denied the availability of such recovery actions. The court also considered the extent of the Nominal Defendant's liability under section 5(1)(c) of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946* (NSW) and the availability of the Motor Accidents Authority Fund to meet these liabilities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Nominal Defendant's arguments. It held that section 212(3)(d) of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW) was not confined to administrative expenses but extended to payments in respect of claims or judgments. The court found that the natural meaning of the provision did not support the Nominal Defendant's restrictive interpretation. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that policy considerations, particularly the Nominal Defendant's inability to recover from uninsured owners and drivers under the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW) as it could under the previous *Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act 1942*, meant that recovery actions by employers should be disallowed. The court concluded that the legislative scheme did not preclude such recovery actions.

Consequently, both appeals were dismissed with costs.