Court of Appeal
New South Wales
Case Title: State Super SAS Trustee Corporation v Cornes Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCA 257 Hearing Date(s): 26 February 2013 Decision Date: 09 August 2013 Before: McColl JA at [1];
Basten JA at [2];
Preston CJ of LEC at [66]Decision: (1) Allow the appeal and set aside the orders made in the District Court on 30 June 2011.
(2) Remit the matter to the District Court to determine the respondent's application under s 21 of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 according to law.
(3) Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs in this Court.
(4) Grant the respondent a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW).
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: APPEAL - nature of appeal - appeal from award of court in "point of law" - whether fact-finding involving perversity or illogicality can amount to error in point of law - whether Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 should be applied - failure to address issues in accordance with statute - constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction - District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 142N
WORKERS COMPENSATION - police officer - incapacity - hurt on duty - compensation for psychological infirmity arising out of injury suffered after commencement of statutory amendments on 1 January 2002 - reduction in compensation where respondent's psychological infirmity due to "something that occurred" before 1 January 2002 - medical evidence that events prior to 1 January 2002 diminished respondent's capacity to cope with trauma and stress -whether necessary that symptoms capable of supporting a diagnosis existed prior to 1 January 2002 - Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) s 10; Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), Sch 6, pt 18C, cl 3
WORKERS COMPENSATION - police officer - incapacity - hurt on duty - Commissioner certified that respondent hurt on duty on a "notional date" - whether events which occurred after notional date had been certified by Commissioner as resulting from respondent being "hurt on duty" - medical evidence that traumatic events after notional date added to respondent's disability - evidence not rejected by trial judge - proportionate reduction of compensation for infirmity due to events not certified as "hurt on duty" - Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) s 10BLegislation Cited: District Court Act 1973 (NSW), ss 142N, 142M
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), ss 10, 10B, 12D, 21
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 15, 16, 65A, 66, 67; Div 3, 4, 5; Pt 3; Sch 6, Pt 18C, cll 1, 3
Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2001 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers…
Continue reading State Super SAS Trustee Corporation v Cornes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- State Super SAS Trustee Corporation v Cornes [2013] NSWCA 257
- Case
- [2013] NSWCA 257
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the District Court judge erred in law by failing to properly apply the relevant statutory provisions concerning the reduction of compensation. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the judge's findings of fact, particularly regarding the impact of events prior to 1 January 2002 on Mr Cornes's capacity to cope with trauma, were so perverse or illogical as to constitute an error of law. Further issues included whether the judge constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction by not adequately addressing the statutory requirements for a proportionate reduction in compensation, and whether the judge erred in not considering the impact of traumatic events that occurred after the "notional date" of injury certified by the Commissioner.
The Court of Appeal found that the District Court judge had erred in law. It held that the judge's findings did not adequately address the statutory requirement for a proportionate reduction of compensation where the psychological infirmity was partly attributable to events occurring before 1 January 2002. The court applied the principle that a failure to address issues in accordance with the statute can amount to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction. The medical evidence indicated that events prior to 1 January 2002 had diminished Mr Cornes's capacity to cope with trauma, and the judge's findings did not properly account for this in calculating the compensation payable.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders made in the District Court were set aside. The matter was remitted to the District Court to determine Mr Cornes's application according to law, with orders for costs in favour of the appellant and a certificate granted under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Allow the appeal and set aside the orders made in the District Court on 30 June 2011.
(2) Remit the matter to the District Court to determine the respondent's application under s 21 of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 according to law.
(3) Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs in this Court.
(4) Grant the respondent a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW).
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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
Established by: PRESTON CJ
Full text does not contain this section.