Roche v Australian Prestressing Services Pty Ltd

Roche brought an appeal against the decision of an Arbitrator who found that he was not entitled to weekly payments after his statutory weekly payments ceased. Roche had previously entered into a complying agreement with his employer, Australian Prestressing Services, under section 66A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. This agreement stipulated Roche's weekly payments would end once he reached the age of 60. Roche subsequently obtained a Medical Assessment Certificate, which indicated that he was not capable of undertaking his pre-injury employment. Roche argued that this certificate entitled him to continuing weekly payments. The court was required to determine whether Roche was estopped from asserting his right to continued weekly payments by the complying agreement, and whether the subsequent Medical Assessment Certificate could override the terms of that agreement.

The court considered whether the doctrine of estoppel applied in this situation, where Roche had entered into a complying agreement and later obtained a Medical Assessment Certificate indicating he was unable to return to his pre-injury employment. The court noted that estoppel could potentially apply in situations where there is a change in circumstances, but the party seeking to rely on estoppel must establish that it would be inequitable to allow them to resile from a representation. The court held that Roche had not established that it would be inequitable for him to seek continued weekly payments based on the Medical Assessment Certificate, given that the complying agreement had not been varied or brought to an end. The court further found that the subsequent Medical Assessment Certificate did not automatically override the terms of the complying agreement. The Arbitrator's determination was thus confirmed, and Roche was not entitled to the weekly payments he sought.

The final orders of the court were that the Arbitrator's determination of 29 October 2012 was confirmed and that each party was to pay their own costs of the appeal. This outcome emphasised the importance of clear and binding agreements in workers' compensation matters, and the limited circumstances in which estoppel might apply to alter the terms of such agreements.