SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
S EAPCI 2021 0072
| O’BRIEN TRANSPORT SERVICES PTY LTD | First Applicant |
| VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY | Second Applicant |
| v | |
| PATRICK JOHN WILLIAMS | Respondent |
---
| JUDGES: | BEACH, KENNEDY JJA and O’MEARA AJA |
| WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 30 March 2022 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 12 April 2022 |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VSCA 62 |
| JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: | Williams v O’Brien Transport Services Pty Ltd & Anor (Unreported County Court of Victoria, Judge Wischusen, 4 June 2021) |
---
WORKER’S COMPENSATION – Respondent injured whilst driving truck – Respondent claimed statutory compensation – Claim accepted – Respondent resumed work after accident – Employer alleged that respondent resigned employment – Weekly payments later claimed – Decision by authorised agent – Decision disputed – Defence rejected – Weekly payments ordered – Interest on weekly payments – Whether authorised agent made a ’decision to terminate or reduce weekly payments’ – Whether interest payable – Statutory construction – Accident Compensation Act 1985, ss 114(2A), 114(2B), 114(2C) and 114E – Primary judge’s decision confirmed – Application refused.
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicants | Ms F A L Ryan SC with Ms S Gold | Hall & Willcox |
| For the Respondent | Mr J P Brett QC with Ms F C Spencer | Harris Lieberman Solicitors Pty Ltd |
BEACH JA
KENNEDY JA
O’MEARA AJA:
This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of a judge of the County Court. On 4 June 2021, his Honour ordered that the second applicant pay the respondent weekly payments of compensation together with superannuation contributions on the said payments at the rate specified for no current work capacity in accordance with the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (the ‘Act’).
His Honour also made the following order:
4.The second [applicant] pay the [respondent] interest on all outstanding weekly payments in accordance with section 114E(1)(c) of the Act from 21 November 2012 to this date and interest on all outstanding superannuation contributions pursuant to section 114EA of the Act, such order to be stayed for a period of 28 days from this date.
(‘the interest order’)
The only order which is the subject of the current application is the interest order.
For reasons stated below, we have determined that the application for leave to appeal should be refused.
Factual Background
The respondent was born on 17 November 1961. On around 10 April 2012, he started working for O’Brien Transport Services Pty Ltd (the first applicant) as an interstate truck driver.
On 7 September 2012, the respondent was driving a Kenworth prime mover and trailer on the South Gippsland Highway near Koonwarra, in the course of his employment, when the vehicle slid on a slippery surface, jack-knifed, and struck two oncoming vehicles (the ‘accident’).
Before the accident, the respondent had been working the equivalent of at least fulltime hours.
Following the accident, the respondent was unable to return to work between 7 September 2012 and 23 September 2012 due to injuries he sustained in the accident. The respondent later received weekly…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read O'Brien Transport Services Pty Ltd v Williams 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] VSCA 62
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the authorised agent's decision to terminate the weekly payments was valid, and whether interest on the payments was payable under the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The court had to interpret the relevant provisions of the Act, specifically sections 114(2A), 114(2B), 114(2C), and 114E, to determine the rights of the parties.
The court found that the authorised agent did not make a valid decision to terminate the weekly payments, as the provisions of the Act required. The court held that the employer was liable to pay the weekly payments and the interest on them, as provided by the Act. The court confirmed the primary judge's decision and refused the employer's application. The employer was ordered to pay the weekly payments and interest to Williams, as well as costs.
This decision highlights the importance of strict compliance with the statutory provisions when making decisions about workers' compensation claims. Employers must ensure that their authorised agents understand and apply the relevant provisions correctly to avoid liability for compensation and interest.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.