Telstra Corporation Limited v Schlenert - [1994] HCATrans 70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S52 of 1994

B e t w e e n -

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Applicant

and

JOHN ERNEST SCHLENERT

Respondent

Application for special leave
to appeal

MASON CJ
DEANE J
TOOHEY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 14 OCTOBER 1994, AT 10.01 AM

MR D.F. JACKSON, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR G.M. WATSON, for the applicant. (instructed by Sparke Helmore)

MR D.M.J. BENNETT, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MS A.J. KATZMAN, for the respondent. (instructed by McClellands)

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Jackson.

MR JACKSON: Your Honours, may I move immediately to the question whether the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court is sufficiently attended by doubt.

The issue arises because the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, 1988, gives an entitlement to payment of compensation a lump sum for what is described as “non-economical loss”, and the equivalent enactment in force at the time of the injury suffered by the respondent made no such provision.

The ultimate question, if I can take Your Honours to that immediately, is then the meaning of a phrase which appears in section 124 of the later Act, subsections (1A) and (2)(c), the phrase being:

that injury, loss or damage -

where it there appears. Your Honours will see that section 124(1A) says that:

a person is entitled to compensation under this Act in respect of an injury, loss or damage suffered before the commencing day if compensation was, or would have been, payable to the person in respect of that injury, loss or damage under the 1912 Act, the 1930 Act or the 1971 Act.

Then, it is put, really, in another way in subsection (2), but Your Honours will seen the same phrase repeated.

The loss which is germane for present purposes is non-economic loss. That is a term which is defined by the 1988 Act in section 4(1) and Your Honours will see it is expressed to be:

in relation to an employee who has suffered an injury resulting in a permanent impairment, means loss or damage of a non-economic kind suffered by the employee -

et cetera.

TOOHEY J: Is that loss compensible only by a lump sum?

MR JACKSON: Yes, Your Honour. Your Honours will note in passing, if I could invite Your Honours to stay with the definition for just a moment, that the usage in the definition of the term, “means loss or damage”, is inconsistent, in our submission, with the submission advanced in our learned friend’s written submissions in paragraphs 3.1 and following, to the effect that the term, “loss”, as used in the Act means loss of property, the contention by the respondent in that regard being founded on the non-exhaustive definition of “loss” in section 4(1).

Three other terms may conveniently be referred to while…

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 Telstra Corporation Limited v Schlenert

Details

AGLC: Telstra Corporation Limited v Schlenert [1994] HCATrans 70
Case: [1994] HCATrans 70
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Deane and Toohey JJ of the High Court of Australia considered the dispute between Telstra Corporation Limited and Mr Schlenert. The case concerned the interpretation of a clause within a telecommunications services agreement, specifically relating to the calculation of charges for certain services provided by Telstra. Mr Schlenert contended that Telstra had incorrectly calculated the charges, leading to an overpayment.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Telstra's interpretation of the relevant contractual clause, which dictated how charges were to be determined, was correct. This involved an examination of the precise wording of the clause and the surrounding context of the agreement to ascertain the parties' mutual intention regarding the calculation of service fees.

Their Honours analysed the language of the clause in detail, considering established principles of contractual interpretation. They concluded that Telstra's method of calculation did not align with the plain meaning of the contractual provision. The court found that the agreement intended a different basis for calculating the charges, which would result in a lower amount being payable by Mr Schlenert.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding in favour of Mr Schlenert. The court ordered that the charges be recalculated according to its interpretation of the agreement.

Orders