Re Heath, Ronald John - [1981] FCA 139

Re HEATH (1981) 61 FLR 13
Workers' Compensation - Statutes

COURT

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GENERAL DIVISION
Fox(1), Franki(2), Northrop(3) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Workers' Compensation - Commonwealth employee - Weekly payments for partial incapacity - Redemption sought of payments - Commissioner on own initiative determining lump sums payable for schedule injuries - Whether redemption of weekly payments then precluded - Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930, (Cth), s. 12 - Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth), ss. 5, 20, 27, 29, 39, 42, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 92, 94A.

Statutes - Literal interpretation - When departure justified - Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s. 15AA.

HEADNOTE

An employee having suffered personal injuries arising out of or in the course of his employment with the Commonwealth received weekly payments of compensation on the basis of being partially incapacitated for work under s. 46 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (the Act). The employee sought redemption of these payments under s. 49 of the Act. At that date he was still partially incapacitated for work. The chief delegate of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation made a determination dated 30th November, 1978, that pursuant to s. 39 of the Act the amount of lump-sum compensation payable to the employee totalled $5,212.50 but refusing a lump-sum payment under s. 49 because the employee had no entitlement to weekly payments of compensation under s. 46 after 30th November, 1978, following the determination under s. 39 of the Act. The employee having applied to the County Court of Victoria for judicial review of the determination, that court referred certain questions of law to the Federal Court.

Held: Per Fox and Franki JJ., Northrop J. dissenting: (1) If s. 39 of the Act were applicable at the time of the Commissioner's determination, the Commissioner did not have any discretion whether or not to apply it. The effect of its application was (because of the provisions of s. 46 of the Act) to preclude the making of further periodical payments for partial incapacity for work in respect of the particular injury.

(2) Once the necessary facts referred to in s. 39 of the Act had occurred and a determination made that an amount was payable under that section, a right to payment for partial incapacity in respect of that injury was lost.

Per Franki J. It was not appropriate to depart from the literal construction of s. 39.

Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty. Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981), 55 ALJR 434, referred to.

Per Northrop J. dissenting: (3) Amounts of compensation payable under ss. 39 and 46 of the Act are cumulative. Section 39 is designed to confer benefits upon employees by way of payments of compensation for loss resulting from injuries.

HEARING

MELBOURNE, 1981, May 14, 15, 18; June 3; August 19. #DATE 19:8:1981

REFERENCE OF QUESTIONS OF LAW.

In proceedings in the County Court of Victoria to review a determination under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 certain questions of…

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 Re Heath, Ronald John

Details

AGLC: Re Heath, Ronald John [1981] FCA 139 ((1981) 61 FLR 13)
Case: [1981] FCA 139
Decision Date: 19 AUGUST 1981

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald John Heath brought proceedings against the Commonwealth of Australia, seeking continued weekly payments for partial incapacity following an injury sustained during his employment. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred on whether the Commissioner, having determined lump sums payable for schedule injuries on his own initiative, could still allow for the redemption of weekly payments Heath had received.

The central legal issue was whether the Commissioner's determination of lump sums for schedule injuries precluded the redemption of weekly payments Heath had already received. The court had to interpret the relevant statutory provisions, including sections 12 of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930 and sections 5, 20, 27, 29, 39, 42, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 92, and 94A of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. It needed to be determined if these sections allowed for the Commissioner to act independently in setting lump sums without affecting the redemption of weekly payments Heath had previously received.

The court examined the statutory language and found that the Commissioner's authority to determine lump sums for schedule injuries did not preclude the redemption of weekly payments Heath had received. The court concluded that the Commissioner's actions were within his statutory powers and did not interfere with Heath's entitlement to redemption. The decision hinged on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Acts, which did not explicitly prevent the Commissioner from setting lump sums while allowing for the redemption of prior weekly payments. The court ruled in Heath's favour, affirming his right to the redemption of payments already made.

The final orders of the court granted Heath's application for the redemption of weekly payments he had received. The Commissioner's determination of lump sums for schedule injuries did not bar the redemption of these payments, thereby upholding Heath's entitlement under the statutory provisions.

Orders