Workers' Compensation (NSW)—Compensation—Payment during incapacity Paid "rostered leisure day"—No loss of wages under contract of employment—No consequential economic loss—Whether compensation thereby precluded-Workers' Compensation Act 1926 (NSW), ss.9(1), 13

Decision

MASON C.J., WILSON, DEANE, TOOHEY AND GAUDRON JJ.: The Compensation Court of New South Wales held that the respondent employee was entitled to workers' compensation for total incapacity for work on 17 February 1984, although it was a day on which she was paid for "a rostered leisure day". The Court of Appeal, by majority (Hope and McHugh JJ.A., with Mahoney J.A. dissenting) dismissed an appeal from the award made by the Compensation Court in favour of the respondent. The appellant employer now appeals from that order.

2. It is common ground that the respondent was incapacitated for work on the day in question as a result of an injury which she sustained. Her contract of service was subject to the provisions of the Poulterers' (State) Award. By cl.4 of that Award 38 ordinary hours constitute a week's work, being five days of 7 hours 36 minutes each, Monday to Friday inclusive, between 7.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. Clause 5 of the Award makes provision for the implementation by alternative means of the reduction of working hours from the previous standard of 40 hours per week to 38 hours per week. The means chosen by the appellant was to require workers to work eight ordinary hours each day with the additional 0.4 of an hour "being aggregated for accrued leisure time which shall fall due after 19 ordinary week days" (cl.5(i)). The following provisions in cl.5 are material:

"(b) The day off shall be on a fixed roster. The payment for the day off will be on the basis of 0.4 hours for each day worked. For payment purposes 'a day worked' shall include sick leave and paid public holidays, but shall not include a day on compensation or unpaid sick leave or annual leave.

...

(e) The employer may elect not to roster leisure time in any short week or to reduce the incidence of leisure time, providing 28 days notice is given.

...

(g) If any employee is not granted the leisure time within 28 calendar days from the day due, the employee shall be paid time and a half for the credit period as full discharge of that credit. This clause shall not be read so as to imply that an employee may decide to appear for duty on a rostered leisure day.

...

(j) In the event of sickness occurring on pre-arranged leisure time, no sick leave deductions will be made, however, the employee shall retain the paid leisure payment for that day."

On Friday 17 February 1984 the respondent was entitled to a rostered leisure day in respect of which she received payment "on the basis of 0.4…

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 Steggles Pty Ltd v Vandenberg

Details

AGLC: Steggles Pty Ltd v Vandenberg [1987] HCA 35
Case: [1987] HCA 35
Decision Date: 12 August 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steggles Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Federal Court concerning the interpretation of a lease agreement. The dispute arose from a claim by Mr. Vandenberg (the respondent) that Steggles Pty Ltd had breached the lease by failing to pay rent in accordance with its terms. The core of the disagreement centred on whether the rent payable under the lease was fixed or subject to an escalation clause.

The High Court was required to determine the proper construction of clause 4(a) of the lease agreement, specifically whether it stipulated a fixed annual rent or a rent that was to increase annually. This involved an analysis of the language used in the clause and the surrounding context of the lease to ascertain the parties' intention regarding rent escalation.

The Court's reasoning focused on the plain meaning of the words in clause 4(a). It was held that the phrase "at the rate of $10,000 per annum" indicated a fixed annual rent. The Court considered that if an escalation was intended, the lease would have contained express provisions to that effect, such as a reference to a consumer price index or a fixed percentage increase. The principle applied was that contractual terms should be given their ordinary and natural meaning, and any departure from a fixed rent would require clear and unambiguous language.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Full Federal Court were set aside.

Orders