SAS Trustee Corporation v Rossetti - [2018] NSWCA 68

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: SAS Trustee Corporation v Rossetti [2018] NSWCA 68
Hearing dates: 29 March 2018
Date of orders: 29 March 2018
Decision date: 10 April 2018
Before: McColl JA; Basten JA; Payne JA
Decision:
1.   Appeal allowed.

2.   Orders made by Associate Justice Harrison on 15 June 2017 set aside and in lieu thereof:

(a)   Application dismissed.
(b)   Order the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before Associate Justice Harrison.
Catchwords:
JURISDICTION – whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review STC decisions under the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), s 10B pursuant to Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW), s 88 – whether jurisdiction vested in District Court pursuant to Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act, s 21(1)

EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW – New South Wales – members of Police Force hurt on duty – review of compensation claims – whether jurisdiction to review formerly vested in Industrial Court now vested in Supreme Court – whether jurisdiction to review vested in District Court

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – bifurcated scheme for review of decisions – whether review of compensation claims vested in Supreme Court or District Court – use of legislative history and second reading speeches
WORDS AND PHRASES – “decision made by STC on a matter that arises under this Act by reason of a member of the police force being hurt on duty” – Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), s 21(1)(a)
Legislation Cited: Compensation Court Repeal Act 2002 (NSW), Sch 1.6
Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), ss 88, 151A, 153; Sch 4, Pt 18, cll 65, 66
Industrial Relations Amendment (Industrial Court) Act 2016 (NSW), Sch 2.33
Miscellaneous Acts (Workers’ Compensation) Amendment Act 1984 (NSW), Sch 1, Pt 1
Police Regulation (Superannuation and Appeals) Amendment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 2A, 3, 20A, 20B
Police Regulation (Superannuation) (Workers Compensation) Amendment Act 1987 (NSW), Sch 1
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), ss 1, 7, 10, 10B, 12, 12D, 21
Superannuation Administration Act 1987 (NSW), ss 26, 27
Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW), ss 4, 48, 67, 88
Superannuation Legislation (Amendment) Act 1992 (NSW), Sch 2
Cases Cited: Cockle v Isaksen (1957) 99 CLR 155; [1957] HCA 85
Federated Amalgamated Government Railway and Tramway Service Association v The New South Wales Railway Traffic Employees’ Association (1906) 4 CLR 488; [1906] HCA 94
Federated Engine-Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia v The Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd (1911) 12 CLR 398; [1911] HCA 31
Obeid v R (2015) 91 NSWLR 226; [2015] NSWCCA 309
SAS Trustee Corporation v Woollard (2014) 86 NSWLR 367; [2014] NSWCA 75
Zhang v Zemin (2010) 79 NSWLR 513; [2010] NSWCA 255
Texts Cited:
NSW Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 16 October 1979
NSW Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 22 October 1986
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: SAS Trustee Corporation (Appellant)
James Rossetti (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G M Watson SC/Mr M H Best (Appellant)
Mr J M Morris…

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 Rossetti 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: [2018] NSWCA 68
Decision Date: 10 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The SAS Trustee Corporation (STC) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against decisions made by Associate Justice Harrison concerning the jurisdiction to review certain decisions under the *Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906* (NSW). The dispute centred on whether the Supreme Court, or alternatively the District Court, possessed the jurisdiction to review decisions made by the STC regarding members of the police force who were injured on duty.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review STC decisions under section 10B of the *Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906* (NSW), as conferred by section 88 of the *Superannuation Administration Act 1996* (NSW), or whether such jurisdiction was vested in the District Court pursuant to section 21(1) of the *Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906* (NSW). This involved interpreting the legislative scheme for the review of compensation claims for police officers injured on duty, particularly the effect of amendments that transferred review functions from the Industrial Court.

The Court of Appeal considered the legislative history and the second reading speeches of the relevant Acts to interpret the statutory provisions. It determined that the scheme established by the legislation created a bifurcated review process. The Court concluded that the phrase "decision made by STC on a matter that arises under this Act by reason of a member of the police force being hurt on duty" in section 21(1)(a) of the *Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906* (NSW) vested jurisdiction in the District Court, not the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the application.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders made by Associate Justice Harrison on 15 June 2017 were set aside. In lieu thereof, the application was dismissed, and the appellant, STC, was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before Associate Justice Harrison.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Orders made by Associate Justice Harrison on 15 June 2017 set aside and in lieu thereof:

(a) Application dismissed.

(b) Order the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before Associate Justice Harrison.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	SAS Trustee Corporation v Rossetti [2018] NSWCA 68
Hearing dates:	29 March 2018
Date of orders:	29 March 2018
Decision date:	10 April 2018
Before:	McColl JA; Basten JA; Payne JA
Decision:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. Orders made by Associate Justice Harrison on 15 June 2017 set aside and in lieu thereof: (a) Application dismissed. (b) Order the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before Associate Justice Harrison.
Catchwords:	JURISDICTION – whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review STC decisions under the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), s 10B pursuant to Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW), s 88 – whether jurisdiction vested in District Court pursuant to Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act, s 21(1) EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW – New South Wales – members of Police Force hurt on duty – review of compensation claims – whether jurisdiction to review formerly vested in Industrial Court now vested in Supreme Court – whether jurisdiction to review vested in District Court STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – bifurcated scheme for review of decisions – whether review of compensation claims vested in Supreme Court or District Court – use of legislative history and second reading speeches WORDS AND PHRASES – “decision made by STC on a matter that arises under this Act by reason of a member of the police force being hurt on duty” – Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), s 21(1)(a)
Legislation Cited:	Compensation Court Repeal Act 2002 (NSW), Sch 1.6 Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), ss 88, 151A, 153; Sch 4, Pt 18, cll 65, 66 Industrial Relations Amendment (Industrial Court) Act 2016 (NSW), Sch 2.33 Miscellaneous Acts (Workers’ Compensation) Amendment Act 1984 (NSW), Sch 1, Pt 1 Police Regulation (Superannuation and Appeals) Amendment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 2A, 3, 20A, 20B Police Regulation (Superannuation) (Workers Compensation) Amendment Act 1987 (NSW), Sch 1 Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), ss 1, 7, 10, 10B, 12, 12D, 21 Superannuation Administration Act 1987 (NSW), ss 26, 27 Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW), ss 4, 48, 67, 88 Superannuation Legislation (Amendment) Act 1992 (NSW), Sch 2
Cases Cited:	Cockle v Isaksen (1957) 99 CLR 155; [1957] HCA 85 Federated Amalgamated Government Railway and Tramway Service Association v The New South Wales Railway Traffic Employees’ Association (1906) 4 CLR 488; [1906] HCA 94 Federated Engine-Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia v The Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd (1911) 12 CLR 398; [1911] HCA 31 Obeid v R (2015) 91 NSWLR 226; [2015] NSWCCA 309 SAS Trustee Corporation v Woollard (2014) 86 NSWLR 367; [2014] NSWCA 75 Zhang v Zemin (2010) 79 NSWLR 513; [2010] NSWCA 255
Texts Cited:	NSW Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 16 October 1979 NSW Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 22 October 1986
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	SAS Trustee Corporation (Appellant) James Rossetti (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr G M Watson SC/Mr M H Best (Appellant) Mr J M Morris…