State Super SAS Trustee Corporation v Cornes

The appeal concerned a police officer, Mr Cornes, who sought compensation for psychological infirmity arising from being hurt on duty. The State Super SAS Trustee Corporation (the appellant) appealed from an award made by the District Court. The central dispute revolved around the application of statutory amendments that reduced compensation for psychological infirmity if it was due to "something that occurred" before 1 January 2002.

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.