Legal Research
Cases
SAS Trustee Corporation v Pearce

SAS Trustee Corporation v Pearce

Link copied

Case Copied 24 September 2009 71 min read

Contents

On this page

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION: SAS TRUSTEE CORPORATION v PEARCE [2009] NSWCA 302

HEARING DATE(S): 25 June 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 September 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Giles JA at 2; Basten JA at 37

DECISION:
(1) To the extent necessary, grant leave to appeal and dispense with further compliance with the rules.
(2) Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and orders made in the District Court on 12 August 2008.
(3) Remit the matter to the District Court for redetermination, including in relation to the costs of the first hearing, according to law.
(4) Grant the respondent a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) in respect of his costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – when appeal lies – statutory requirements – appeal from District Court – appeal against award of the Court in point of law – failure to give adequate reasons – whether capable of grounding appeal – District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 142N - WORKERS' COMPENSATION – impairment due to psychological infirmity – entitlement under amendments commencing on 1 January 2002 – incidents giving rise to psychological infirmity occurred prior to commencement of amendments – 'notional' date of injury certified to be 10 November 2005 – whether notional date valid – whether reduction necessary on account of pre-amendment incidents – Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 15 and 16, Sch 6, Pt 18C – Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), s 323 – Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2001 (NSW) - WORKERS' COMPENSATION – police officer discharged on medical grounds – entitlement to compensation – post-traumatic stress disorder and depression developed through employment in police force – whether disease – gratuity for permanent impairment due to psychological infirmity – Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) s 12D - WORDS AND PHRASES – "permanent impairment" – "post-traumatic stress disorder" – "previously non-compensable impairment" – "psychological infirmity"

LEGISLATION CITED: District Court Act 1973 (NSW), ss 142, 142J, 142M, 142N
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), ss 1, 4, 9A, 10, 10B, 12D, 15, 16, 21
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 9A, 11A, 15, 16, 22, 66, 67, 68A, 68B; Pt 3, Div 4; Sch 6, Pt 18C, cl 3
Workers Compensation Legislation Further Amendment Act 2001 (NSW), Schedule 6 Pt 18C, cl 3
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 322, 323

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Amaca Pty Ltd v A B & P Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 220; (2007) Aust Torts Rep 81-910
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258
Coates v Commissioner for Railways (1960) 78 WN (NSW) 377
Commissioner of Police v Kennedy [2007] NSWCA 328
Day v SAS Trustee Corporation [2009] NSWCA 222
Director-General, Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care v Lambert [2009] NSWCA 102
Grygiel v Baine [2005] NSWCA 218
Haider v J P…

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 SAS Trustee Corporation v Pearce 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: [2009] NSWCA 302
Decision Date: 24 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The SAS Trustee Corporation appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment of the District Court. The dispute concerned the entitlement of Mr. Pearce, a former police officer, to workers' compensation for psychological infirmity, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, which developed during his employment. The incidents giving rise to his condition occurred prior to 1 January 2002, the commencement date of significant amendments to the workers' compensation legislation. However, Mr. Pearce's "notional" date of injury was certified as 10 November 2005.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether an appeal lay to the Court on the ground that the District Court judge failed to give adequate reasons for the decision, and whether this failure was capable of grounding an appeal under s 142N of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW). Further, the Court had to consider whether the "notional" date of injury was validly certified, and if a reduction in compensation was necessary due to the pre-amendment incidents, in light of ss 15 and 16 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) and relevant transitional provisions. The Court also considered whether Mr. Pearce's conditions constituted a "disease" for the purposes of the legislation and his entitlement to a gratuity for permanent impairment under s 12D of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW).

The Court of Appeal held that a failure to give adequate reasons could indeed ground an appeal on a point of law. Regarding the substantive issues, the Court found that the "notional" date of injury was not validly certified in the circumstances, and that the amendments commencing on 1 January 2002 did not apply to Mr. Pearce's claim in a way that would avoid the need for reduction due to pre-amendment incidents. The Court reasoned that the legislation intended to preserve the effect of the law as it stood at the time of the incidents for claims arising from those incidents, even if a notional date of injury was later assigned.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the District Court's judgment and orders, and remitted the matter to the District Court for redetermination according to law, including the costs of the first hearing. Mr. Pearce was granted a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) in respect of his costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) To the extent necessary, grant leave to appeal and dispense with further compliance with the rules.

(2) Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and orders made in the District Court on 12 August 2008.

(3) Remit the matter to the District Court for redetermination, including in relation to the costs of the first hearing, according to law.

(4) Grant the respondent a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) in respect of his costs of the appeal.

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.

CITATION:	SAS TRUSTEE CORPORATION v PEARCE [2009] NSWCA 302
HEARING DATE(S):	25 June 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:	24 September 2009
JUDGMENT OF:	Beazley JA at 1; Giles JA at 2; Basten JA at 37
DECISION:	(1) To the extent necessary, grant leave to appeal and dispense with further compliance with the rules. (2) Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and orders made in the District Court on 12 August 2008. (3) Remit the matter to the District Court for redetermination, including in relation to the costs of the first hearing, according to law. (4) Grant the respondent a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) in respect of his costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – when appeal lies – statutory requirements – appeal from District Court – appeal against award of the Court in point of law – failure to give adequate reasons – whether capable of grounding appeal – District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 142N - WORKERS' COMPENSATION – impairment due to psychological infirmity – entitlement under amendments commencing on 1 January 2002 – incidents giving rise to psychological infirmity occurred prior to commencement of amendments – 'notional' date of injury certified to be 10 November 2005 – whether notional date valid – whether reduction necessary on account of pre-amendment incidents – Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 15 and 16, Sch 6, Pt 18C – Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), s 323 – Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2001 (NSW) - WORKERS' COMPENSATION – police officer discharged on medical grounds – entitlement to compensation – post-traumatic stress disorder and depression developed through employment in police force – whether disease – gratuity for permanent impairment due to psychological infirmity – Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) s 12D - WORDS AND PHRASES – "permanent impairment" – "post-traumatic stress disorder" – "previously non-compensable impairment" – "psychological infirmity"
LEGISLATION CITED:	District Court Act 1973 (NSW), ss 142, 142J, 142M, 142N Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), ss 1, 4, 9A, 10, 10B, 12D, 15, 16, 21 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69 Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 9A, 11A, 15, 16, 22, 66, 67, 68A, 68B; Pt 3, Div 4; Sch 6, Pt 18C, cl 3 Workers Compensation Legislation Further Amendment Act 2001 (NSW), Schedule 6 Pt 18C, cl 3 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 322, 323
CATEGORY:	Principal judgment
CASES CITED:	Amaca Pty Ltd v A B & P Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 220; (2007) Aust Torts Rep 81-910 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258 Coates v Commissioner for Railways (1960) 78 WN (NSW) 377 Commissioner of Police v Kennedy [2007] NSWCA 328 Day v SAS Trustee Corporation [2009] NSWCA 222 Director-General, Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care v Lambert [2009] NSWCA 102 Grygiel v Baine [2005] NSWCA 218 Haider v J P…