NT Drilling Pty Ltd v McFarland - [2004] NTSC 23

[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2004 List] NT Drilling Pty Ltd v McFarland [2004] NTSC 23

PARTIES: NT DRILLING PTY LTD
(ACN 090 669 N542)

GARY JOHN McFARLAND

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: APPEAL FROM THE WORK HEALTH COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: LA 1 of 2004 (20113035)

DELIVERED: 30 April 2004

HEARING DATE: 15 April 2004

JUDGMENT OF: RILEY J

CATCHWORDS:

EMPLOYMENT LAW
The contract of service and rights, duties and liabilites as between employer and employee - minimum entitlement of employees - remuneration.

WORKERS COMPENSATION
- Assessment and amount of compensation - calculation of worker's entitlement to compensation for long term incapacity - calculation of "normal weekly earnings" of an employee

WORKERS COMPENSATION
- Assessment and amount of compensation - special payments - superannuation contributions made by employer to the worker - whether superannuation payment made pursuant to the statutory obligation was part of workers' normal weekly earnings - amount of rent paid by employer on behalf of the worker - value of workers' private use of employer's motor vehicle.

Legislation:

Work Health Act
Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 (Cth)
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)
Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth)
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)

Cases:

Rigby v Technisearch (1996) 67 IR 68
Izdes v L.G. Bennett & Co Pty Ltd trading as Alba Industries (1995) 61 IR 439
Condon v G. James Extrusion Company (1997) 74 IR 283
Smith v Hastings Deering (Australia) Ltd (2003) NTMC 029
Hastings Deering (Australia) Ltd v Smith (2004) NTSC 2
Murwangi Community Aboriginal Corporation v Carroll (2002) 12 NTLR 121
Rofin Australia Pty Ltd v Newton (1997) 78 IR 78
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1981-1982) 149 CLR 337
Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) (1986) ATPR 48
McAuliffe v Vogler (1992) 110 FLR 454
Inn Leisure Industries Pty Ltd v D.F. McCloy Pty Ltd & Another (No 2) (1991) 28 FCR 172
Robert Penfold & Hunt Australia Pty Ltd v Higgins & Northern Land Council (2002) NTSC 89
AAT King's Tours Pty Ltd v Hughes (1994) 118 FLR 126
G.H. Michell & Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd v Bockman, (unreported SC (SA) - 13 May 1994)

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: S.R. Southwood QC
Respondent: C.R. McDonald QC

Solicitors:
Appellant: Hunt & Hunt
Respondent: Ward Keller

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: ril0406
Number of pages: 18

ril0406

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

NT Drilling Pty Ltd v McFarland [2004] NTSC 23
No LA 1 of 2004 (20113035)

IN THE MATTER OF the Work Health Act

AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under the Work Health Act at Darwin

BETWEEN:

NT DRILLING PTY LTD
(ACN 090 669 N542)
Appellant

AND:

GARY JOHN McFARLAND
Respondent

CORAM: RILEY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 30 April 2004)

[1] The respondent/worker was injured in the course of his employment with the appellant/employer in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NT Drilling Pty Ltd v McFarland and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NTSC 23
Decision Date: 30/04/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of NT Drilling Pty Ltd v McFarland involves an appeal from a decision of the Work Health Court regarding the calculation of a worker's entitlement to compensation for long-term incapacity under the Work Health Act. The worker, Gary John McFarland, was injured in the course of his employment with NT Drilling Pty Ltd and claimed compensation. The employer accepted the claim but disputed the calculation of the worker's entitlement. The employer's appeal focused on the inclusion of certain items in the assessment of the worker's "normal weekly earnings." These items included superannuation contributions, the amount of rent paid by the employer on behalf of the worker, and the value of the worker's private use of the employer's motor vehicle. Additionally, the employer challenged the award of interest on unpaid arrears of weekly benefits.

The court upheld the inclusion of superannuation contributions in the calculation of normal weekly earnings, finding that such contributions were part of the worker's remuneration. This conclusion was supported by precedents in industrial relations law and specific case law under the Work Health Act. Regarding the payment of rent, the court found that the payments were part of the worker's regular remuneration and not an excluded allowance. However, the court found error in the inclusion of the value of the worker's private use of the employer's motor vehicle, as there was no explicit or implied term in the contract of employment that allowed such use.

Further, the court ruled that the employer was not liable for interest on unpaid benefits, as the employer's delay in making payments was not unreasonable given the circumstances. On the worker's cross-appeal, the court found no error in the magistrate's decision to award costs to the worker, and it upheld the magistrate's interpretation of the taxation of non-monetary benefits, finding that income tax was not to be considered in calculating the worker's compensation.

The employer's appeal was allowed in part, and the worker's cross-appeal was dismissed. The court will hear the parties regarding the final orders to be made.

Orders