| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | ||
| STATUS: Appeal to the Court of Appeal allowed – Hochbaum v RSM Building Services Pty Ltd; Whitton v Technical and Further Education Commission t/as TAFE NSW [2020] NSWCA 113 | ||
| CITATION: | RSM Building Services Pty Ltd v Hochbaum [2019] NSWWCCPD 15 | |
| APPELLANT: | RSM Building Services Pty Ltd | |
| RESPONDENT: | Frank Hochbaum | |
| INTERVENER: | State Insurance Regulatory Authority | |
| INSURER: | AAI Limited t/as GIO – Agent for the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer | |
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-4847/18 | |
| SENIOR ARBITRATOR: | Ms J Bamber | |
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 7 January 2019 | |
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 18 April 2019 | |
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Construction of s 39 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 | |
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | President Judge Phillips | |
| DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: | 2 April 2019 | |
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Ms B Tronson, of counsel, instructed by Hicksons |
| Respondent: | Mr R Page, of counsel, instructed by Shine Lawyers | |
| Intervener: | Ms J Davidson, of counsel, instructed by the Crown Solicitor | |
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | The Senior Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination dated 7 January 2019 is revoked and the following is substituted in its place: “An award for the respondent employer.” | |
INTRODUCTION
This appeal concerns the application and interpretation of s 39 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). Section 39 ceases a worker’s entitlement to the payment of weekly compensation after an aggregate period of 260 weeks. This prohibition is lifted if a worker is assessed as having a degree of permanent impairment of more than 20%. The question for determination on appeal is this – if the assessment is made at a point in time after the cessation of the aggregate 260-week period, is the worker entitled to the back payment of compensation between the cessation date and the date of the assessment of permanent impairment greater than 20%?
BACKGROUND
Frank Hochbaum was employed by RSM Building Services Pty Ltd as a labourer.
On 1 September 2000, Mr Hochbaum sustained an injury to his right leg when he fell while pushing a wheelbarrow during the course of his employment with the appellant employer. The appellant’s insurer, Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited (Allianz), voluntarily paid weekly payments of compensation.
In July 2004, the parties entered into a complying agreement pursuant to s 66A of the 1987 Act, in the sum of $8,750. This agreement resolved Mr Hochbaum’s claim for lump sum compensation in relation to the loss of efficient use of the right leg below the knee resulting from the injury in September 2000.
In June 2012, Mr Hochbaum was walking when his right leg gave way and he stumbled and fell onto his outstretched right arm. In January 2015, Mr Hochbaum made a claim in respect of a secondary condition to his back and right arm (wrist) due to the September 2000 injury. That claim was denied by the insurer.
On 2 April 2013, Allianz made a work capacity decision which found that Mr Hochbaum had no work capacity.
On 2 August 2017, the insurer advised…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read RSM Building Services Pty Ltd v Hochbaum 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
- [2019] NSWWCCPD 15
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine the correct interpretation of section 39, specifically whether the Arbitrator had the authority to award damages to an employer for the economic loss suffered as a result of an employee’s injury. The court considered whether the language of the statute permitted such an award and whether there were any legislative or policy reasons that would preclude such a remedy. The court also examined the principles of statutory interpretation, including the literal approach, the purposive approach, and the mischief rule, to ascertain the true intent of the legislature.
The court concluded that the Arbitrator had erred in awarding damages to the employer under section 39. The court found that the language of the statute did not explicitly provide for such an award and that the purpose of the Workers Compensation Act was primarily to protect employees rather than employers. The court held that the Arbitrator had overstepped the statutory authority by making an award that was not contemplated by the legislature. As a result, the court revoked the Senior Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination and substituted it with an award for the respondent employer.
The final orders of the court were to revoke the Senior Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination dated 7 January 2019 and substitute it with an award for the respondent employer, effectively dismissing RSM Building Services Pty Ltd’s appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Senior Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination dated 7 January 2019 is revoked and the following is substituted in its place:
“An award for the respondent employer.”
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.