Woolworths Ltd v Lister

Case [2004] NSWCA 292


CITATION: Woolworths Ltd v Lister [2004] NSWCA 292
HEARING DATE(S): 16 July 2004
JUDGMENT DATE:
27 August 2004
JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Beazley JA at 36; Ipp JA at 37
DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed.; 2. Award of Compensation Court set aside and in lieu thereof order that the application for determination be dismissed.; 3. No order as to the costs of the appeal.; 4. The respondent is to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951.; 5. Liberty to the appellant to apply, on 7 days notice to the WorkCover Authority, for an order that the Authority reimburse it for any weekly compensation payments made under the award that accrued after it was made.
CATCHWORDS: COSTS - appeal succeeding on point not raised below - appellant not entitled to costs of appeal - STATUTE - construction - reference to Act - Act repealed and re-enacted with modifications - Interpretation Act 1987 - reference to Act later repealed construed as reference to Act which re-enacted repealed Act with modifications
LEGISLATION CITED: Interpretation Act 1987 s 68(3)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 s 42(8)
CASES CITED: Blue Metal Industries Ltd v Dilley [1970] AC 827
Hill v Villawood Sheet Metal Pty Ltd [1970] 2 NSWR 434
NRMA Insurance Ltd v B & B Shipping & Marine Salvage Co Pty Ltd (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 273
Rizzi v Grazcos Co-operative Ltd (1981) 153 CLR 669
Sin Poh Amalgamated (HK) Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1965] 1 WLR 62
Stevens v The General Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1903] 1 KB 890
Vela Fishing Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2004] 1 NZLR 313
Winter v Ministry of Transport [1972] NZLR 539

PARTIES :

Woolworths Ltd (Claimant)
Ruth Ann Lister (Opponent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 41126/03
COUNSEL: R Kenzie QC/J Taylor (Claimant)
P Stockley (Opponent)
SOLICITORS: Moray & Agnew (Claimant)
Kennedy & Cooke (Opponent)
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Compensation Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): CC 11580/02
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Armitage CCJ


                          CA 41126/03

                          HANDLEY JA
                          BEAZLEY JA
                          IPP JA

                          27 AUGUST 2004
WOOLWORTHS LTD v RUTH ANN LISTER
CATCHWORDS

COSTS – appeal succeeding on point not raised below – appellant not entitled to costs of appeal

STATUTE – construction – reference to Act – Act repealed and re-enacted with modifications – Interpretation Act 1987 – reference to Act later repealed construed as reference to Act which re-enacted repealed Act with modifications


FACTS

Section 42(8) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) defined “award” for the purposes of that section as meaning, inter alia, “an award or industrial agreement within the meaning of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 of the Commonwealth”. The definition was relevant in the application of s 42(1)(a) which fixed rates of weekly compensation by reference to “an award fixing or providing for the fixing of a rate for a weekly or longer period”.

The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 was repealed in 1988 and replaced by a new Act which later, by amendment, became the Workplace…

Continue reading Woolworths Ltd v Lister

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Woolworths Ltd v Lister [2004] NSWCA 292
Case
[2004] NSWCA 292
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolworths Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against an award made by the Compensation Court. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a statutory provision and its application to the respondent's claim for compensation.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a reference in a statute to a repealed Act should be construed as a reference to the Act which re-enacted the repealed Act with modifications, particularly in light of the *Interpretation Act 1987* (NSW). A further issue arose regarding the costs of the appeal, given that the successful point of law was not raised in the court below.

The Court of Appeal held that the *Interpretation Act 1987* mandated that a reference to a repealed Act should be construed as a reference to the corresponding re-enacted Act. Applying this principle, the Court found that the Compensation Court had erred in its interpretation of the relevant legislation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the award of the Compensation Court was set aside, and the respondent's application for determination was dismissed. No order was made as to the costs of the appeal, but the respondent was granted a certificate under the *Suitors' Fund Act 1951*, and the appellant was given liberty to apply for reimbursement of certain weekly compensation payments.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.; 2. Award of Compensation Court set aside and in lieu thereof order that the application for determination be dismissed.; 3. No order as to the costs of the appeal.; 4. The respondent is to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951.; 5. Liberty to the appellant to apply, on 7 days notice to the WorkCover Authority, for an order that the Authority reimburse it for any weekly compensation payments made under the award that accrued after it was made.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.