Scott v Sun Alliance Australia Limited

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Scott, against the respondent, Sun Alliance Australia Limited. The dispute centred on the interpretation of section 69(1)(a)(ii) of the Tasmanian *Workers Compensation Act*, specifically the phrase "ordinary time rate of pay of the worker (as expressed by reference to a week)". The applicant sought to overturn a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania had erred in its interpretation of the phrase "ordinary time rate of pay of the worker (as expressed by reference to a week)" within the context of calculating workers compensation for total incapacity. The applicant argued that the Full Court's reasoning, particularly that of Justice Underwood, failed to properly apply established principles from High Court decisions in *Kezich's case* and *Catlow's case*, and that it had incorrectly embellished the agreed facts found at first instance.

The applicant contended that the Full Court, in following the reasoning of Justice Zeeman in *White's case*, had adopted an objective test for the "ordinary time rate of pay" based on the award week and ordinary hours. However, the applicant argued that Justice Underwood, while agreeing with the principle in *White's case*, found it inapplicable to the specific facts of *Scott's case*. The applicant highlighted that Justice Underwood had added the qualification "and no more" to an agreed finding that the worker would work sixteen hours per week, which was not supported by the original agreed facts. This, the applicant submitted, constituted an embellishment of the findings of fact and a departure from the established legal principles.