Iddles v The Albury Sailors Soldiers and Airmens Club Ltd [2002] NSWCC 30

Iddles v The Albury Sailors Soldiers and Airmens Club Ltd [2002] NSWCC 30

The Assistant Registrar was correct because, at the time the application for determination was filed, the applicable legislation required a claim for s 66 compensation and the expiry of the two-month period, but no regulation then prescribed a requirement to provide a supporting medical certificate certifying permanent loss. In any event, the medical report served certified a permanent loss of efficient use of the left arm below the elbow of the order of 30 per cent and would have satisfied the former regime.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Application for Determination and Review Under S 36 of the Compensation Court Act 1984 / Review of Assistant Registrar O'dowd's Decision Refusing the Employer's Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Application for Determination
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Legal Topics
['claim Duly Made' 'permanent Impairment Lump Sum Compensation' 'medical Certificate Requirements' 'effect of Repeal of Regulation' 'commencement of Court Proceedings After Claim']
['workers Compensation' 'civil Procedure' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['claim Duly Made' 'permanent Impairment Lump Sum Compensation' 'medical Certificate Requirements' 'effect of Repeal of Regulation' 'commencement of Court Proceedings After Claim']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Workers Compensation Application for Determination and Review Under S 36 of the Compensation Court Act 1984 / Review of Assistant Registrar O'dowd's Decision Refusing the Employer's Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Application for Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the worker's claim for compensation under s 66 and s 67 had been duly made before the application for determination was filed." 'Whether, after the 2001 amending Acts and repeal of cl 39 of the Workers Compensation (General) Regulation 1995, a supporting medical certificate certifying permanent loss was required.' 'Whether the medical report served by the worker would have satisfied the former requirements if they still applied.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Assistant Registrar was correct because, at the time the application for determination was filed, the applicable legislation required a claim for s 66 compensation and the expiry of the two-month period, but no regulation then prescribed a requirement to provide a supporting medical certificate certifying permanent loss. In any event, the medical report served certified a permanent loss of efficient use of the left arm below the elbow of the order of 30 per cent and would have satisfied the former regime.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for review is dismissed.' "The employer is to pay the worker's costs of the review." 'Certify for counsel.']