Woolworths Group Limited v Jackermis

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia heard an appeal concerning the calculation of lump sum compensation for work injuries. The appeal was brought by Woolworths Group Limited (the applicant) against its employee, Ms. Jackermis (the respondent). The dispute arose from the applicant's determination that the respondent was not entitled to further lump sum compensation for a second work injury due to a previous payment for an earlier injury.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was the proper interpretation of section 56(6)(b)(ii) of the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) (RTWA), specifically the meaning of "a new work injury" in the context of reducing subsequent lump sum entitlements. The applicant had argued that the respondent's second shoulder injury constituted a "new work injury" and therefore required a reduction of the second lump sum payment by the amount of the first, resulting in a nil entitlement. The respondent contended for a different interpretation of this phrase.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, finding that the primary judge had erred in their construction of "a new work injury." The Court reasoned that while the definition of "injury" in the RTWA is broad, the specific wording and structure of section 56(6) indicated a distinction between injuries that are an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, deterioration, or recurrence of a prior injury (covered by s 56(6)(b)(i)) and "a new work injury" (covered by s 56(6)(b)(ii)). The Court concluded that the phrase "a new work injury" in subparagraph (ii) should not be interpreted so broadly as to encompass the types of injuries described in subparagraph (i), thereby avoiding rendering the latter otiose.

Consequently, the Full Court set aside the decision of the Full Bench and ordered that the respondent's application for review be dismissed. The Court found it unnecessary to consider an alternative ground of appeal relating to statutory limits on economic loss entitlements.