State Super SAS Trustee Corporation Ltd v Perrin

The appeal concerned a former police officer, Mr. Perrin, who sought to set aside a decision by the State Super SAS Trustee Corporation (STC) regarding his entitlement to surgical treatment. The STC had refused to grant a gratuity for proposed neck surgery, deeming it not reasonably necessary. Mr. Perrin had previously been granted a gratuity under s 12D(1) of the *Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906* for a "hurt on duty" injury. The appeal was brought before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales following a decision by the District Court.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court judge erred in law in their determination of Mr. Perrin's entitlement to compensation for surgical treatment. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the proposed surgery was reasonably necessary under s 60 of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987*, and whether the primary judge had correctly found that other causes of Mr. Perrin's neck pain needed to be excluded before the surgery could be considered reasonably necessary. The court also considered whether the STC's decision was made within its incidental powers under s 57 of the *Superannuation Administration Act 1996*.

The Court of Appeal found that the District Court judge had erred in law. The primary judge had imposed a requirement that all other causes of Mr. Perrin's neck pain be excluded before the proposed surgery could be deemed reasonably necessary, a condition not supported by the relevant legislation. The Court of Appeal held that the STC's decision was based on an incorrect understanding of the legal test for reasonably necessary surgical treatment. Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the District Court's determination and orders, and dismissed Mr. Perrin's appeal to the District Court.