Stankovic v SS Family Pty Ltd

Stankovic brought proceedings against SS Family Pty Ltd, seeking damages for an injury sustained during his employment. SS Family Pty Ltd’s insurer, Workcover, had determined that Stankovic was a worker within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act, but that the Work Related Impairment (WRI) from the injury was less than 20%. Stankovic elected to bring a claim for damages against SS Family Pty Ltd, and Workcover sought a ruling that it was not required to indemnify SS Family Pty Ltd as an employer under the Act. The court had to determine whether the Act precluded the insurer from contending that Stankovic was not a worker who had sustained an injury under the Act and whether the insurer was required to indemnify the employer under the Act.

The court held that the Act on its proper construction did not preclude the insurer from contending that Stankovic was not a worker who had sustained an injury under the Act. The court also held that the insurer was not required to indemnify the employer as an employer under the Act, as the employer had not been found liable for the injury under the common law.

The court found that the insurer’s determination that Stankovic was a worker within the meaning of the Act did not automatically entitle him to compensation under the Act. The court also found that the insurer was not required to indemnify the employer as an employer under the Act, as the employer had not been found liable for the injury under the common law. The court held that the insurer was not required to indemnify the employer as an employer under the Act, as the employer had not been found liable for the injury under the common law.

The court dismissed the application filed by leave on 6 February 2018.