Sharyn Lee Primrose v Wendy J Page - [2009] ACTSC 132

SHARYN LEE PRIMROSE v WENDY J PAGE & ANOR
[2009] ACTSC 132 (9 October 2009)

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Commonwealth) ss 5, 11, 14, 16, 19, 48, 50, 53, 54, 61
Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance 1949-1968 (NT)
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Commonwealth)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Commonwealth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Commonwealth)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) s 151Z
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Court Procedures Rules 2006 Div 2.15.3

Tickle Industries Pty Ltd v Hann (1974) 130 CLR 321
Behan v Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1990) 99 ALR 79

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Barrow (1994) 19 AAR 532

Shergold v Tanner (2002) 209 CLR 126
Saraswati v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 1
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Flynn (2002) 55 NSWLR 303
Tamerji v Rhee [2008] NSWCA 314

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Commonwealth) – plaintiff claiming damages for personal injury from tortfeasor – plaintiff previously received compensation under Act – dispute as to causal connection between tort and impairment – whether open to Court to make declaration as to amount of compensation required to be repaid under section 48

PRACTICE and PROCEDURE – Court Procedures Rules 2006 Division 2.15.3 – circumstances in which Court will determine preliminary question of law

No. SC 35 of 2007

Judge: Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 9 October 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SC 35 of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN:SHARYN LEE PRIMROSE
Plaintiff

AND:WENDY J PAGE
First Defendant

COMCARE

Second Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  9 October 2009
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The question asked in the statement of preliminary point be answered in the negative.

This action commenced as a conventional claim for damages for personal injury arising out of a motor vehicle collision. The collision happened on 11 February 2004 in Canberra Avenue, Griffith. The defendant ran into the back of the plaintiff’s car while it was stopped in traffic.

The plaintiff was on her way home from work. She worked as a dental technician with ACT Community Care, a position in the ACT Public Service. She was an employee as defined in section 5 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Commonwealth) (The SRC Act) and was entitled to claim benefits from Comcare.

Section 14 of the SRC Act provides that Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in incapacity for work. By section 16, Comcare is liable to pay compensation of such amount as Comcare determines to be appropriate in respect of the cost of medical treatment obtained in relation to the injury. Section 19 makes Comcare liable to pay an employee who is incapacitated for work an amount of compensation calculated by reference to a statutory formula.

Section 53 makes the application of the Act in relation to an injury to an employee dependent on written notice of…

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 Sharyn Lee Primrose v Wendy J Page 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: [2009] ACTSC 132
Decision Date: 9 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sharyn Lee Primrose versus Wendy J Page involved a dispute over the interpretation and application of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Commonwealth). The plaintiff, Sharyn Lee Primrose, sought damages for personal injuries sustained from a tortfeasor. A prior compensation payment was made to the plaintiff under the Act. The central issue was whether there was a causal connection between the tort and the plaintiff's impairment and if the court could declare the amount of compensation that should be repaid under section 48 of the Act. Additionally, the court had to determine if it was appropriate to address a preliminary question of law regarding the application of Division 2.15.3 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006.

The court examined the statutory language and the legislative intent behind the Act, focusing on the interplay between common law and statutory compensation frameworks. It also considered the procedural rules governing the court's ability to make preliminary determinations of law. The court found that the statutory language did not explicitly allow the court to declare the amount of compensation to be repaid, and such a declaration would usurp the legislative function. Furthermore, the procedural rules did not support the court determining preliminary questions of law in this context.

The court concluded that it was not appropriate to answer the preliminary question in the affirmative. The court's role was limited to interpreting and applying the law as enacted by the legislature, and it did not extend to making declarations about the amount of compensation to be repaid under the statute. The court ruled that the question posed in the statement of the preliminary point should be answered in the negative, effectively dismissing the plaintiff's request for a declaration regarding the compensation repayment amount.

Orders

Orders of the court

The question asked in the statement of preliminary point be answered in the negative.

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.