Secretary, Department of Education v Field

The case of Secretary, Department of Education v Field involved a dispute regarding the calculation of pre-injury average weekly earnings under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, specifically for a casual worker. The issue was whether certain periods when the worker did not work should be excluded from the "relevant earning period" in accordance with regulations 8C, 8D, or 8E of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016. This case followed the decision in Secretary, Department of Education and Justice v Stewart, where similar issues were considered. The principles of judicial comity were also relevant, as explored in cases such as La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and Hicks v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

The court was required to determine whether the relevant regulations applied to exclude periods when the worker did not work from the "relevant earning period." The court considered whether the adjustments specified in regulations 8C, 8D, and 8E of the 2016 Regulation were applicable in this scenario. It needed to examine the specific circumstances of the worker's employment and the nature of the periods in question to decide whether they should be excluded.

The court applied the principles from Secretary, Department of Education and Justice v Stewart, which had previously addressed similar issues. It considered the statutory language and the purpose behind the relevant regulations. The court found that the exclusion of periods when the worker did not work was not applicable under the given regulations. The application of judicial comity was also taken into account, ensuring that the interpretation was consistent with the broader legal framework.

The final orders of the court were that the periods when the worker did not work should not be excluded from the "relevant earning period" for the purposes of calculating the pre-injury average weekly earnings. The court held that regulations 8C, 8D, and 8E did not apply to exclude such periods. This decision clarified the scope of the relevant regulations and provided guidance for similar future cases.