Goodman Fielder Ltd v Hickson [2008] NSWCA 69

Goodman Fielder Ltd v Hickson [2008] NSWCA 69

By majority, s 10(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 requires a reduction in the worker's damages determined by the court under s 9. Because the respondent's third party damages proceedings were settled by consent judgment without any court determination of contributory negligence or quantum, there was no reduction 'under section 9' to which the workers compensation repayment could be tied. The respondent was therefore liable to repay the full compensation amount under s 151Z(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and the evidentiary questions did not arise.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Statutory Construction of Workers Compensation Repayment and Contributory Negligence Provisions / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From District Court Answers to Separate Questions
Outcome
By majority, appeal allowed; Hodgson JA dissenting.
Legal Topics
['recovery of Workers Compensation From Worker After Third Party Damages' 'contributory Negligence' 'law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 Pt 3' 'workers Compensation Act 1987 S 151 Z(1)(b)' 'settlement of Personal Injury Proceedings']
['workers Compensation' 'statutory Construction' 'torts'] ['recovery of Workers Compensation From Worker After Third Party Damages' 'contributory Negligence' 'law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 Pt 3' 'workers Compensation Act 1987 S 151 Z(1)(b)' 'settlement of Personal Injury Proceedings']

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 Concerning Statutory Construction of Workers Compensation Repayment and Contributory Negligence Provisions / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From District Court Answers to Separate Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 10(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 can reduce the amount of workers compensation repayable to an employer from damages recovered by settlement of proceedings against a third party tortfeasor where no court determined contributory negligence or quantum of damages.' 'If s 10(2) can apply after such a settlement, whether evidence is admissible to establish the extent to which the settlement damages were in fact reduced for contributory negligence.' 'Alternatively, whether evidence is admissible to establish the degree of contributory negligence and the quantum of damages that would have been recoverable without reduction.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, s 10(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 requires a reduction in the worker's damages determined by the court under s 9. Because the respondent's third party damages proceedings were settled by consent judgment without any court determination of contributory negligence or quantum, there was no reduction 'under section 9' to which the workers compensation repayment could be tied. The respondent was therefore liable to repay the full compensation amount under s 151Z(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and the evidentiary questions did not arise.

Court Disposition

By majority, appeal allowed; Hodgson JA dissenting.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the answers to the questions, and in lieu thereof answer the questions - Q1(a) No, Q1(b) Does not arise, Q3 Does not arise.' "Set aside any order as to the costs of deciding the separate questions made by the trial judge and order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of deciding...