Perrin v SAS Trustee Corporation - [2014] NSWDC 203

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Perrin v SAS Trustee Corporation [2014] NSWDC 203
Hearing dates: 28 October 2014
Decision date: 28 October 2014
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
Court has jurisdiction to find that proposed surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of the plaintiff's having been hurt on duty

Catchwords: POLICE SUPERANNUATION - Whether SAS Trustee Corporation has power to make a decision as to proposed future medical treatment - Whether District Court hearing appeal pursuant to s 21 Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) has power to make "declaration of liability" as to proposed future medical treatment or a like decision
Legislation Cited: Compensation Court Repeal Act 2002 (NSW)
District Court Act 1973 (NSW)
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW)
Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Athey v United Steel Company Limited (1935) 28BWCC 435 [C.A.]
Brespro Pty Limited v Keenahan (Egan CCJ, unreported, 12 May 1992)
Chapman v Director General of School Education (Campbell CJ of CC, unreported, 19 November 1999)
Devine v Brown's Wharf Limited [1949] WCR 70
Gunter v Gunter [1966] WCR 21
King v The Port of London Authority [1920] AC1
Lupton & Ors v Better Care Pty Ltd (1996) 13 NSWCCR 246
McEvoy v Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc. [2001] NSWCC 168
Meredith v Barratt and Smith Pathology Pty Limited (Campbell CJ of CC, unreported, 17 February 1997)
Telicki v Tennyson Textiles Pty Limited [1960] 34 WCR119
Waters Trading Company v Eade [1950] WCR 140
Widdup v Hamilton [2006] NSWWCCPD 258
Williams v Commissioner of Police (1994) 10 NSWCCR 350
Category: Separate question
Parties: Scott D Perrin (Plaintiff)
SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Walter Madden Jenkins (Plaintiff)
SMK Lawyers (Defendant)
Counsel:
Mr P O'Rourke (Plaintiff)
Mr D Stanton (Defendant)

File Number(s): RJ00256/13
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: At a callover on 1 August 2014 I set down for hearing today the issue raised by plea numbered 11 of the second amended defence filed by the defendant on 4 August 2014. Obviously, I had drawn to my attention on 1 August 2014 the second amended defence which the defendant then sought to file and which was in fact filed on 4 August 2014. This morning I granted leave to the plaintiff to rely on a first amended statement of claim filed on 26 September 2013 and I also granted leave to the defendant to rely on the second amended defence filed on 4 August 2014.

The relief claimed by the plaintiff in the statement of claim upon which I have granted him leave to rely is this:

"1.The determination of the defendant's delegate dated 14 December 2012 pursuant to s 12D(1) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 ("the Act") declining to approve the payment of a gratuity for operative treatment on the plaintiff's cervical spine is set aside pursuant to s 21 of the Act.

2.The determination of the defendant's delegate dated 10…

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 Perrin v SAS Trustee Corporation 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: [2014] NSWDC 203
Decision Date: 28 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Perrin v SAS Trustee Corporation involves the plaintiff, a police officer, and the defendant, the SAS Trustee Corporation, who is the trustee for the Police Superannuation Fund. The central issue in this dispute is whether the defendant has the authority to decide on the necessity of proposed future medical treatment for the plaintiff, specifically whether the defendant can make a decision regarding a proposed surgery. The appeal was heard by the District Court of New South Wales.

The legal questions before the court were twofold. Firstly, it had to determine whether the SAS Trustee Corporation has the power to make decisions regarding proposed future medical treatment. Secondly, it had to consider whether the District Court hearing an appeal under section 21 of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) has the authority to make a "declaration of liability" concerning the proposed future medical treatment or a similar decision.

The court held that the SAS Trustee Corporation does not have the power to make decisions about the necessity of proposed future medical treatment. The court emphasised that the role of the SAS Trustee Corporation is confined to matters concerning the superannuation fund itself, and not to the medical treatment of individual members. Regarding the second issue, the court found that the District Court does indeed have the power to make a declaration of liability concerning the proposed future medical treatment. The court reasoned that the statutory framework allows for such a declaration to be made, which would determine the liability of the superannuation fund in relation to the proposed treatment. This decision ensures that the court can provide clarity and guidance on the fund's obligations without encroaching on the medical decision-making process.

The court concluded that it has the jurisdiction to find that the proposed surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of the plaintiff having been injured on duty. This ruling effectively shifts the responsibility for determining the necessity of the treatment back to the medical professionals, while affirming the court's role in adjudicating on the superannuation fund's liability. This decision ensures that the plaintiff's entitlements are protected and that the fund's obligations are clearly defined.

Orders

Orders of the court

Court has jurisdiction to find that proposed surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of the plaintiff's having been hurt on duty

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Perrin v SAS Trustee Corporation [2014] NSWDC 203
Hearing dates:	28 October 2014
Decision date:	28 October 2014
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	Court has jurisdiction to find that proposed surgery is reasonably necessary as a result of the plaintiff's having been hurt on duty
Catchwords:	POLICE SUPERANNUATION - Whether SAS Trustee Corporation has power to make a decision as to proposed future medical treatment - Whether District Court hearing appeal pursuant to s 21 Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) has power to make "declaration of liability" as to proposed future medical treatment or a like decision
Legislation Cited:	Compensation Court Repeal Act 2002 (NSW) District Court Act 1973 (NSW) Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW) Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Athey v United Steel Company Limited (1935) 28BWCC 435 [C.A.] Brespro Pty Limited v Keenahan (Egan CCJ, unreported, 12 May 1992) Chapman v Director General of School Education (Campbell CJ of CC, unreported, 19 November 1999) Devine v Brown's Wharf Limited [1949] WCR 70 Gunter v Gunter [1966] WCR 21 King v The Port of London Authority [1920] AC1 Lupton & Ors v Better Care Pty Ltd (1996) 13 NSWCCR 246 McEvoy v Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc. [2001] NSWCC 168 Meredith v Barratt and Smith Pathology Pty Limited (Campbell CJ of CC, unreported, 17 February 1997) Telicki v Tennyson Textiles Pty Limited [1960] 34 WCR119 Waters Trading Company v Eade [1950] WCR 140 Widdup v Hamilton [2006] NSWWCCPD 258 Williams v Commissioner of Police (1994) 10 NSWCCR 350
Category:	Separate question
Parties:	Scott D Perrin (Plaintiff) SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors: Walter Madden Jenkins (Plaintiff) SMK Lawyers (Defendant) Counsel: Mr P O'Rourke (Plaintiff) Mr D Stanton (Defendant)
File Number(s):	RJ00256/13
Publication restriction:	No