Norton v Blight (No 3) - [2016] SADC 17

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
NORTON v BLIGHT (No 3)
[2016] SADC 17
Judgment of His Honour Judge Slattery
24 February 2016
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
The plaintiff Norton was injured in a motor vehicle accident in the course of her employment. It was agreed that the plaintiff was responsible for 90% of the accident by reason of her contributory negligence. The parties agreed upon the total assessed damages. Judgment in favour of the plaintiff Norton was handed down in the sum of $55,189.00 in accordance with the parties’ agreement on liability. This amount was placed into the District Court Suitor’s Fund.
Norton received workers compensation payments under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) (the “1986 Act”) by Employers Mutual Limited (EML) as an agent of the WorkCover Corporation. During the course of these proceedings, EML gave notices to Blight of a claim for entitlement to recover the amounts of workers compensation paid to Norton under the Act.
WorkCover Corporation of South Australia is by leave an intervenor in these proceedings and seeks the payment to it the amount of workers compensation payments made to Norton since the accident totalling $43,559.34. This amount relates to amounts paid to Norton and an assessment of amounts payable in the future.
Whether the Corporation’s claim should be reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence in the common law action.
Whether s 54(7)(d)(iv) of the Act is intended to have retrospective effect.
Whether and if so what version of the 1986 Act or the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) (‘RTW Act’) applies to this claim.
Held:
1. The claim to reduce the Corporation’s claim according to the percentages of liability agreed in the common law action is refused. The contributory negligence of the plaintiff had been taken into account at the time of the assessment of the defendant’s liability to make a payment of damages to the plaintiff.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 Part 2 of Schedule 9, s54 (5), (6), (7), (8); Return to Work Act 2014 s66; War Precautions (Moratorium) Regulation Regulation 8C; District Court Rules Rule 89; Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) s16, s22 ; Law Reform Act s7 , referred to.
Worrall & Anor v The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Ltd (1917) 24 CLR 28; Pardo v Bingham LR 4 Ch; State of South Australia v Collings (1996) 65 SASR 432; Paglia v Trice (1991) 56 SASR 62, discussed.
Cocca v Salkeld (No. 2) [2014] SADC 157 ; Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 266 ; Rodway v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 515; Republic of Costa Rica v Erlanger (1876) 3 Ch D 62; Santos Limited v Saunders (1988) 49 SASR 556; Workcover Corporation v Hojski (1993) 170 LSJS 129; Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Limited (1920) 28 CLR 129 ; Project Blue Sky Inc v Australia Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 ; Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214; Repatriation Commission v…

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 Norton v Blight (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Norton v Blight (No 3) [2016] SADC 17
Case: [2016] SADC 17
Decision Date: 24 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves a claim by Workcover Corporation under a statutory charge upon an amount of money paid into the District Court Suitors Fund. The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident in the course of her employment and was awarded damages of $55,189.00. The Workcover Corporation of South Australia, as an intervenor, seeks payment of $43,559.34 for workers compensation payments made to the plaintiff. The primary legal issues are whether the Workcover Corporation's claim should be reduced by the plaintiff's contributory negligence and whether s54(7)(d)(iv) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 has retrospective effect. The court held that the claim should not be reduced by the plaintiff's contributory negligence as the contributory negligence had already been taken into account in the assessment of the defendant's liability. The court also held that s54(7)(d)(iv) does not have retrospective effect, as it applies to compensation paid or payable under the Act. The court further held that the absence of s54(7)(d)(iv) in the Return to Work Act 2014 has little significance in the overall scheme of the Act.

Orders