Kibble v R W Miller & Co Pty Limited [2001] NSWCC 66

Kibble v R W Miller & Co Pty Limited [2001] NSWCC 66

The Court held that it had jurisdiction because a question arising under s 43(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 was within the Court's jurisdiction under the Workplace Injury Management & Workers Compensation Act 1998 as construed with the 1987 Act. Section 43(2) did not require weekly payments proceedings to be on foot and did not exclude its operation merely because the request was made during a s 66 and s 67 claim. The Registrar was therefore wrong to refuse the requested orders on that basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation / Notice of Motion Seeking Review of a Registrar's Decision
Outcome
Registrar Davidson's decision was discharged insofar as he refused to make the orders sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the notice of motion, substitute orders were made requiring provision of earnings details, and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the Motion.
Legal Topics
['employer Obligation to Provide Earnings Details' 'weekly Compensation Information Requests' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'compensation Court Jurisdiction']
['workers Compensation' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['employer Obligation to Provide Earnings Details' 'weekly Compensation Information Requests' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'compensation Court Jurisdiction']

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 / Notice of Motion Seeking Review of a Registrar's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Compensation Court had jurisdiction to review the Registrar's decision concerning a request under s 43(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987." 'Whether s 43(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 applies only where proceedings for weekly payments are already on foot, or whether it can apply despite the request being made in the course of a s 66 and s 67 claim.' "Whether the respondent should be ordered to provide details of the applicant's earnings and two comparable employees' earnings."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it had jurisdiction because a question arising under s 43(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 was within the Court's jurisdiction under the Workplace Injury Management & Workers Compensation Act 1998 as construed with the 1987 Act. Section 43(2) did not require weekly payments proceedings to be on foot and did not exclude its operation merely because the request was made during a s 66 and s 67 claim. The Registrar was therefore wrong to refuse the requested orders on that basis.

Court Disposition

Registrar Davidson's decision was discharged insofar as he refused to make the orders sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the notice of motion, substitute orders were made requiring provision of earnings details, and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the Motion.

Orders

  • ["The respondent to provide to the applicant's solicitors details of the earnings of the applicant for a period 12 months prior to 30 June 1995 up to 31 July 1998, distinguishing between net and gross income, in accordance with the provisions of s 43 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987." "The respondent to provide...