Spinelli v Integrated Labour Network Pty Limited - [2013] NSWWCCPD 31

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
REFERENCE OF A QUESTION OF LAW TO THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY THE PRESIDENT
CITATION:	Spinelli v Integrated Labour Network Pty Limited [2013] NSWWCCPD 31
APPLICANT:	Michael Spinelli
RESPONDENT:	Integrated Labour Network Pty Limited
INSURER:	QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited
INTERVENER:	WorkCover Authority of New South Wales
FILE NUMBER:	8859/12
DATE OF DECISION:	28 May 2013
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:	Question of Law; s 351 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act (1998); application of savings and transitional provisions of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 with respect to claims for lump sum compensation
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	President Judge Keating
HEARING:	Oral
REPRESENTATION:	Applicant:	Mr D Hooke SC and Mr D Toomey, instructed by Slater & Gordon Lawyers
Respondent:	Mr S Flett, instructed by Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Intervener:	Mr W Cooper for the WorkCover Authority of New South Wales
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. Application for leave to refer questions of law refused. 2. The hearing date of 13 June 2013 is vacated. 3. The respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker’s costs of the application. 4. The WorkCover Authority is to pay its own costs.

INTRODUCTION

This matter involves an Application for Leave to Refer a Question of Law to the President of the Commission pursuant to s 351 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act). The Application is made by a Commission Arbitrator at the request of the parties.
This matter is one of several matters involving questions of law concerning the construction of the amendments to Div 4 of Pt 3 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) (Compensation for non-economic loss) introduced by Sch 2 of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 (the Amending Act), and the savings and transitional provisions which accompany it.

THE QUESTIONS OF LAW

The questions of law referred for determination are:
(a) Is cl 11 of Sch 1 of the Workers Compensation Amendment (Transitional) Regulation 2012 invalid?
(b) Do the amendments to Div 4 of Pt 3 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 introduced by Sch 2 of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 apply to a worker injured on or after 1 January 2002, who has made a claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to ss 66 and 67 of the 1987 Act prior to 19 June 2012, so as to disentitle them from making a further claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act on or after 19 June 2012 in respect of additional permanent impairment resulting from the same injury?
(c) Do the amendments to Div 4 of Pt 3 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 introduced by Sch 2 of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 apply to a worker injured on or after 1 January 2002, who has made a claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to ss 66 and 67 of the 1987 Act prior to 19 June 2012, so as to disentitle them…

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.

Continue reading Spinelli v Integrated Labour Network Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Spinelli v Integrated Labour Network Pty Limited [2013] NSWWCCPD 31
Case: [2013] NSWWCCPD 31
Decision Date: 28 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Spinelli v Integrated Labour Network Pty Limited, the applicant, Mr. Spinelli, brought a claim against the respondent employer, Integrated Labour Network Pty Limited, in the Workers Compensation division of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The dispute centred around the application of the savings and transitional provisions of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 concerning claims for lump sum compensation. Mr. Spinelli sought to have questions of law referred to the Court of Appeal.

The court needed to determine whether the savings and transitional provisions of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 correctly applied to claims for lump sum compensation under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the transitional provisions, as amended by the 2012 Act, preserved the right to claim lump sum compensation for injuries that occurred before the commencement of the 2012 Act. The primary issue was the interpretation of section 351 of the 1998 Act and how it interacted with the transitional provisions introduced by the 2012 Act.

The court found that the application for leave to refer questions of law to the Court of Appeal was not warranted. It held that the provisions of the 2012 Act correctly applied to the claim for lump sum compensation and that the transitional provisions preserved the rights of claimants for injuries that occurred prior to the commencement of the 2012 Act. The court also determined that the hearing date of 13 June 2013 was to be vacated and ordered that the respondent employer pay the applicant's costs of the application, while the WorkCover Authority was to bear its own costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to refer questions of law refused.

2. The hearing date of 13 June 2013 is vacated.

3. The respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker’s costs of the application.

4. The WorkCover Authority is to pay its own costs.

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.