Whitley, O.W. v. Scobie, R. [1985] FCA 564

Whitley, O.W. v. Scobie, R. [1985] FCA 564

The workman's appeal on paragraph 11(1)(e) failed because, at the relevant times, his usual place of residence was Adelaide and he was not required to undergo treatment away from that place. The appeal on sub-section 12(1) succeeded because the 1978 amendment operated prospectively: entitlement to additional compensation depended on medical advice that the workman required constant help or attendance, and the amount was then to be fixed at a reasonable weekly rate by the Tribunal, not confined to the former fixed rate of $20 per week merely because the injury occurred before 27 October 1978.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 1985
Procedural Posture
Appeal in a Workers' Compensation Matter / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['living Away From Home Allowance' 'usual Place of Residence' 'constant Help or Attendance of Another Person' 'prospective Operation of Amending Legislation' 'costs']
["workers' Compensation" 'statutory Interpretation'] ['living Away From Home Allowance' 'usual Place of Residence' 'constant Help or Attendance of Another Person' 'prospective Operation of Amending Legislation' 'costs']

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

Appeal in a Workers' Compensation Matter / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the workman was entitled to compensation pursuant to sub-section 11(2A) of the Workmen's Compensation Act." 'Whether the expression "his usual place of residence" in paragraph 11(1)(e) referred to the workman\'s residence at the date of injury or at the date treatment was required.' 'Whether the 1978 amendment to sub-section 12(1), replacing a fixed weekly sum with a weekly rate considered reasonable by the Tribunal, applied where the injury occurred before the amendment commenced.']

Ratio Decidendi

The workman's appeal on paragraph 11(1)(e) failed because, at the relevant times, his usual place of residence was Adelaide and he was not required to undergo treatment away from that place. The appeal on sub-section 12(1) succeeded because the 1978 amendment operated prospectively: entitlement to additional compensation depended on medical advice that the workman required constant help or attendance, and the amount was then to be fixed at a reasonable weekly rate by the Tribunal, not confined to the former fixed rate of $20 per week merely because the injury occurred before 27 October 1978.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['The appeal from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory be allowed in part.' "Order no. 5 of the Supreme Court be set aside and in lieu thereof Richard Scobie pay such amounts by way of compensation to Oro Wesley Whitley as were provided pursuant to s.12 of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance from time to...