Legal Research
Cases
Watkins Ltd v Renata, W

Watkins Ltd v Renata, W

Case [1985] FCA 254 14 June 1985

Loss of capacity for work

Redemption

Retrospective increase in weekly rates

Judicial Review

Workers' Compensation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

WATKINS LTD. v. RENATA (1985) 8 FCR 65
Workers' Compensation

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Toohey(1), McGregor(2) and Morling(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Workers' Compensation - "Loss of capacity for work" - Relevant considerations - Redemption - Whether based on gross weekly earnings or after tax earnings - Application for redemption made by workman - No injustice to workman - Whether Tribunal bound to accede to application - Retrospective increase in weekly rates following judgment of court below - Whether Federal Court can vary order of court below to take account of increase - Role of Federal Court in appeal from Supreme Court - Workmen's Compensation Act 1981 (NT), s 7(1), cll (1B), (12), (12A) of Sched 2 - Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 28.

HEADNOTE

Held: (1) The expression "loss of capacity for work" in cl (1B) of Sched 2 to the Workmen's Compensation Act 1981 means physical incapacity for actually doing work in the labour market in which the worker works or may reasonably be expected to work. It is not physical incapacity resulting in actual economic loss.

Arnotts Snack Products Pty. Ltd. v. Yacob (1985) 59 ALJR 215, applied.

(2) A relevant consideration in determining loss of capacity for work is the restriction of opportunities open to a person who is disabled by reason of his injuries.

Ball v. William Hunt & Sons Pty. Ltd. (1912) AC 496; Clark v. Gas Light and Coke Co. (1905) 21 TLR 184, followed.

(3) The lump sum payable by way of redemption of weekly payments should be based upon the workman's gross weekly earnings before tax, not after-tax earnings. This follows from the terms of the Act as a whole, but particularly cl (12) of Sched 2 where the reference to redemption of "the liability for that weekly payment" is a reference to the redemption of the employer's liability to make the payment.

Michaelis, Hallenstein and Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Lewis (1944) 68 CLR 613, per Starke J. at 625, referred to.

(4) Per Toohey and Morling JJ., (McGregor J. dissenting) - When a workman applies for redemption in circumstances which meet the requirements of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal is bound to accede to the application, unless it would be unjust to the workman to do so.

Kendall & Gent Ltd. v. Pennington (1912) 5 BWCC 335; Elliott Ltd. v. Hobbs (1929) 22 BWCC 509; Michaelis Hallenstein and Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Lewis (1944) 68 CLR 613; Harrington v. Harrington (1981) 55 ALJR 566 at 569 per Gibbs C.J.; Clawley v. Carlton Main Colliery Co. Ltd. (1918) AC 744 at 569 per Gibbs C.J., applied.

(5) Per Toohey and Morling JJ. - Once the primary judge ordered redemption, the employer's liability to the workman was merged in the judgment and was unaffected by a subsequent regulation which retrospectively increased the weekly rates of compensation. This appeal was an appeal in the strict sense and not…

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 Watkins Ltd v Renata, W

Details

AGLC: Watkins Ltd v. Renata, W. [1985] FCA 254 ((1985) 8 FCR 65)
Case: [1985] FCA 254
Decision Date: 14 JUNE 1985

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Watkins Ltd was the defendant in an action brought by Renata W under the Workers' Compensation Act 1981 (NT). Renata sought compensation for a loss of capacity to work following an injury sustained during her employment. The dispute involved the calculation of Renata's loss of capacity for work, specifically whether this should be based on gross weekly earnings or after-tax earnings. Additionally, the matter considered whether the Federal Court could vary the Supreme Court's order to account for a retrospective increase in weekly rates.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, particularly sections 7(1), clauses (1B), (12), and (12A) of Schedule 2. The court needed to determine the correct basis for calculating Renata's loss of capacity, as well as the extent to which the Federal Court could adjust the Supreme Court's decision in light of a post-judgment increase in weekly rates. The court also considered whether it was bound to accede to Renata's application for redemption of compensation.

The court found that the proper basis for calculating Renata's loss of capacity for work should be after-tax earnings, aligning with the statutory provisions. It concluded that the Federal Court had the discretion to vary the Supreme Court's order to reflect the retrospective increase in weekly rates. The court held that it was not bound to accept Renata's application for redemption, provided no injustice was caused to her. In this instance, the court determined that the application for redemption did not result in any injustice.

The final orders of the court were to affirm the Supreme Court's judgment, with modifications to reflect the retrospective increase in weekly rates. The court also ruled that Renata's application for redemption did not require acceptance unless it could be shown that such a refusal would cause her injustice.

Orders