Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: SAS Trustee Corporation v O'Keefe [2011] NSWCA 326 Hearing dates: 10 August 2011 Decision date: 26 October 2011 Before: McColl JA at 1,
Basten JA at 2,
Handley AJA at 42Decision: (1) Appeal allowed with costs.
(2) Set aside the decision of the District Court of 11 June 2010 and in lieu thereof substitute an order that the appeal to that court be dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(3) The respondent to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW).
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - changes in assessment of compensation - effect of amendments commencing on 1 January 2002 - application of transitional provisions - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 4, 16, Sch 6, Pt 18C, cl 3
WORKERS COMPENSATION - incapacity due to police officer being hurt on duty - entitlement under Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) - injury arising from nature and conditions of work - effect of amendments commencing on 1 January 2002 - gratuity quantified not by reference to dates on which the injury occurred but date of claimLegislation Cited: District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 142N
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), ss 1, 10, 10B, 12C, 12D, 21
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 4, 9A, 15, 16, 17, 66, 67; Div 3, Pt 3, Pt 18C, cll 3, 3A
Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2001 (NSW), Sch 3, Sch 4
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 4, 322, 323Cases Cited: Alto Ford Pty Ltd v Antaw (1999) 18 NSWCCR 246
Australian Conveyor Engineering Pty Ltd v Mecha Engineering Pty Ltd (1998) 45 NSWLR 606
Commissioner of Police v Kennedy [2007] NSWCA 328
Commissioner for Railways v Bain [1965] HCA 5; 112 CLR 246
Day v SAS Trustee Corporation [2009] NSWCA 222
GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd v GIO General Ltd (GIO) (1995) 12 NSWCCR 187
Murray v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWCA 365
P&A Berkeley Challenge Pty ltd v Alfonzo (Berkeley) (2000) 49 NSWLR 481
Rail Services Australia v Dimovski [2004] NSWCA 267; 1 DDCR 648
Saad v Commissioner of Police (1995) 12 NSWCCR 70
SAS Trustee Corporation v Pearce [2009] NSWCA 302
Stone v Stannard Bros Launch Services Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 277; 1 DDCR 701
Tysoe v Commissioner of Police (2002) 23 NSWCCR 417Category: Principal judgment Parties: Appellant: SAS Trustee Corporation
Respondent: John Paul O'KeefeRepresentation: Counsel:
Appellant: Mr D J Russell SC / Mr N Ghabar
Respondent: Mr T M Ower / Mr M N…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read SAS Trustee Corporation v O'Keefe 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
- [2011] NSWCA 326
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the amendments to the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW), particularly those affecting the assessment of compensation, applied to the respondent's claim. This involved interpreting the transitional provisions of Schedule 6, Part 18C, clause 3 of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW) to determine whether the quantification of the respondent's gratuity should be based on the date of his injury or the date of his claim, given the amendments that took effect on 1 January 2002.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the transitional provisions were intended to preserve the rights of injured workers under the pre-amendment legislation where the injury occurred before 1 January 2002. It held that the assessment of the respondent's entitlement, which arose from an injury sustained before the commencement of the amendments, should be determined by the law in force at the time of the injury, not the date of the claim. Consequently, the amendments commencing on 1 January 2002 did not alter the basis upon which the respondent's gratuity was to be quantified. The appeal was allowed, the District Court's decision was set aside, and the appeal to that court was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed with costs.
(2) Set aside the decision of the District Court of 11 June 2010 and in lieu thereof substitute an order that the appeal to that court be dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(3) The respondent to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW).
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.