Paterson v Stanmorr Pty Ltd

In the matter of Paterson v Stanmorr Pty Ltd, the appellant, who was employed as a manager of a guest house, suffered a total incapacitating injury at work. The dispute centered around the value of the food and accommodation provided to the appellant as part of his employment and whether this should be taken into account in the calculation of his "pre-injury average weekly earnings" and "current weekly earnings" under the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The respondent, Stanmorr Pty Ltd, argued that the value of the food and accommodation should not be included in the calculations, while the appellant maintained that it should be. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the interpretation of the term "ordinary time rate of pay for worker’s normal number of hours per week" as it appeared in sections 5A, 5B, 93A and 93B of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The court was also required to determine whether the value of the food and accommodation provided to the appellant should be included in the calculation of his "pre-injury average weekly earnings" and "current weekly earnings" under the Act.

The court found that the term "ordinary time rate of pay" in the Act was intended to encompass the full remuneration received by the employee, including any non-monetary benefits such as food and accommodation. The court held that the value of the food and accommodation provided to the appellant should be included in the calculation of his "pre-injury average weekly earnings" and "current weekly earnings" under the Act. The court also found that the appellant was entitled to compensation for the loss of his employment and the loss of his future earning capacity.

In light of the court's decision, it was ordered that the respondent pay the appellant compensation for the loss of his employment and the loss of his future earning capacity, taking into account the value of the food and accommodation provided to him as part of his employment. The respondent was also ordered to pay the appellant's legal costs.