Yildiz v Fullview Plastics Pty Ltd

In the case of Yildiz v Fullview Plastics Pty Ltd, the applicant sought a lump sum compensation for pain and suffering under the repealed section 67 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The matter was heard and determined by the Industrial Division of the District Court of New South Wales. The applicant argued that the savings and transitional provisions introduced by the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 preserved their entitlement to the benefits under section 67. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the applicant was not entitled to the compensation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the savings and transitional provisions in the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 preserved the applicant's entitlement to lump sum compensation for pain and suffering under the repealed section 67 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court had to consider the interplay between clauses 3 and 15 of Part 19H of Schedule 6 to the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and clauses 10 and 11 of Schedule 8 to the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016.

The court carefully examined the relevant statutory provisions and the case law, particularly Woolworths Ltd v Wagg [2017] NSWWCCPD 13, to determine the scope and effect of the savings and transitional provisions. The court found that the applicant's claim for lump sum compensation under section 67 was not preserved by the savings and transitional provisions, as the provisions were intended to maintain the substantive rights and obligations under the old regime only for claims that arose before the commencement of the new provisions. The court also noted that the applicant's claim for compensation arose after the commencement of the new provisions, and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to the lump sum compensation under section 67. The court confirmed the Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination, dated 7 December 2018, in its entirety.