SAS Trustee Corporation v Woollard [2014] NSWCA 75
Hearing dates:
1 October 2013
Decision date:
28 March 2014
Before:
Bathurst CJ at [1]; Basten JA at [76]; Tobias AJA at [110]
Decision:
(1)Order that the order of the Full Bench of the Industrial Court made on 8 March 2013 in proceedings No IRC 660 of 2010 be quashed.
(2)Order that the matter be remitted to the Industrial Court to be dealt with according to law.
(3)Order that the first respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings.
[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:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - jurisdictional error - court acting without power APPEAL- Jurisdiction of Industrial Court to hear appeal - Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW), s 67(5) STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - principles - purposive approach - use of regulations when interpreting primary act WORDS AND PHRASES - "injury" - "notified" - Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), s 10B
[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.
Continue reading SAS Trustee Corporation v Woollard
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
SAS Trustee Corporation v Woollard [2014] NSWCA 75
Case
[2014] NSWCA 75
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The SAS Trustee Corporation (the applicant) sought judicial review of an order made by the Full Bench of the Industrial Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the interpretation of provisions within the *Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906* (NSW) and the *Superannuation Administration Act 1996* (NSW), specifically relating to a former police officer's entitlement to a pension due to an injury. The applicant argued that the Industrial Court had acted without jurisdiction in making its determination.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Industrial Court had the power under s 67(5) of the *Superannuation Administration Act 1996* (NSW) to hear an appeal in the circumstances, and whether the Full Bench had erred in its interpretation of the term "injury" as used in s 10B of the *Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906* (NSW), particularly in relation to when such an injury was "notified". The Court was also required to consider the principles of statutory interpretation, including the purposive approach and the relevance of regulations when interpreting a primary Act.
The Court of Appeal found that the Industrial Court had misconstrued the scope of its appellate jurisdiction under s 67(5) of the *Superannuation Administration Act 1996* (NSW). It held that the conditions precedent for the Industrial Court to exercise its power to hear an appeal had not been met. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Full Bench had erred in its interpretation of "injury" and "notified" under s 10B of the *Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906* (NSW), applying a purposive approach that was not supported by the statutory text and considering regulations in a manner that went beyond their intended scope.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the order of the Full Bench of the Industrial Court be quashed and remitted the matter to the Industrial Court to be dealt with according to law. The first respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1)Order that the order of the Full Bench of the Industrial Court made on 8 March 2013 in proceedings No IRC 660 of 2010 be quashed.
(2)Order that the matter be remitted to the Industrial Court to be dealt with according to law.
(3)Order that the first respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings.
[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.]