Scott v Sun Alliance Australia Limited - [1993] HCATrans 76

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Hobart No H7 of 1992
B e t w e e n -
NIGEL LIONEL SCOTT

Appellant

and
SUN ALLIANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED

First Respondent

and
CUTHBERTSON BROTHERS PTY LTD

Second Respondent

Scott(2)

16/3/93

MASON CJ

BRENNAN J

DAWSON J

TOOHEY J

McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT HOBART ON TUESDAY, 16 MARCH 1993, AT 2.20 PM

MR H.J. KABLE:

May it please the Court, together with my

learned friend, MR G.C. WOOD, I appear for the
appellant. (instructed by Wallace Wilkinson &
Webster)

MR A.J. ABBOTT:

May it please the Court, I appear for the

respondents with my learned friend,

MR M.E. O'FARRELL. (instructed by Dobson Mitchell
& Allport)

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Kable.

MR KABLE:

May it please the Court, I hand to the Court

eight copies of the outline of argument. The
outline of argument commences by identifying the
scheme of the Tasmanian Workers Compensation Act
1988, and that Act has been made available to each
of Your Honours in the bundle of materials provided
prior to the Court sitting.
Section 25 of that Act creates an entitlement

to receive workers compensation in circumstances
variously identified in that section; and the
entitlement pursuant to that section is expressed
on the basis that there is a liability on the
employer in the events described in that section to
pay compensation in accordance with the Act. That
compensation may take the form of weekly payments
of compensation pursuant to section 69, which is
the section that is under discussion in this appeal
and to which I will come back later, and/or a lump
sum for a specified injury pursuant to section 71
or 72, and/or medical or other benefits pursuant to
Division 2 Part VI of the Act.
The scheme of the Act in so far as weekly payments is concerned is that according to

section 69(6) which is to be found on page 46 of
the Act:
The total liability of an employer in

respect of compensation under this section
shall not, in any one case, exceed an amount
equal to 284 units calculated in accordance
with the basic rate applying at the date of
the occurrence of the injury.

In order to understand what is meant by "the basic
rate applying at the date of the injury", one has
to have regard to an amending Act, a copy of which
has been provided to Your Honours,
Act No 26 of 1991, which defines "unit", "basic
salary" and "relevant percentage".
How that scheme operates in practice is thus:

in order to ascertain the total amount of workers

Scott(2)

16/3/93

compensation which can ever be received by a worker
by way of weekly payments of compensation, one
multiplies the unit for the time being, pursuant to
section 65, by 284. That will give you a total
figure which may be consumed by the worker by way
of weekly payments of compensation…

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 Scott v Sun Alliance Australia Limited 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: [1993] HCATrans 76
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Scott v Sun Alliance Australia Limited* was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Sun Alliance Australia Limited, was appealing a decision concerning workers' compensation entitlements. The respondents were Cuthbertson Brothers Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the *Workers Compensation Act 1988* (Tas), specifically regarding the calculation and limits of weekly compensation payments.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the determination of the maximum aggregate amount of weekly compensation a worker could receive under section 69 of the Tasmanian *Workers Compensation Act 1988*. This involved interpreting how the "basic rate" and "units" defined in the Act, as amended by Act No 26 of 1991, interacted to establish this maximum entitlement, and whether this maximum was fixed or varied with adjustments to the basic rate. The Court was also asked to consider whether the Act contemplated the redemption of weekly payments.

The Court's reasoning focused on the statutory scheme for weekly payments. Section 69(6) stipulated that the total liability for compensation under that section could not exceed an amount equal to 284 units, calculated according to the basic rate at the time of injury. The Court noted that the value of a "unit" was determined by reference to the basic rate, which could be adjusted. Consequently, if the basic rate increased, the maximum aggregate amount of compensation also increased correspondingly. The Court confirmed that the Act did contemplate redemption of weekly payments, referencing section 89.

Orders