Chun v Comcare [2013] FCA 11

Chun v Comcare [2013] FCA 11

The appeal failed because employer superannuation contributions required to be paid to the Board and into the PSSAP Fund were not an allowance payable to the employee in each week for the purposes of s 8(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The applicant also could not rely on s 8(6)(c) for the Defence Enterprise Collective Agreement 2009 increases because the Tribunal had found he had already reached the highest level in the salary range for his position, and the increases were not increments in a range of salary, wages or pay. His weekly compensation was therefore to be increased only by reference to the index prescribed for s 8(9B).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal on a Question of Law Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From Chun V Comcare [2012] AAT 471
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['calculation of Incapacity Payments' 'normal Weekly Earnings' 'employer Superannuation Contributions' 'allowances Under S 8(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth)' 'salary Increases and Indexation Under S 8(6) and S 8(9 B) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth)']
['administrative Law' 'workers Compensation' 'superannuation'] ['calculation of Incapacity Payments' 'normal Weekly Earnings' 'employer Superannuation Contributions' 'allowances Under S 8(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth)' 'salary Increases and Indexation Under S 8(6) and S 8(9 B) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth)']

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 on a Question of Law Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From Chun V Comcare [2012] AAT 471

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether employer superannuation contributions form part of the normal weekly earnings calculation as an allowance payable to the employee under s 8(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicant was entitled to increases under both s 8(6) and s 8(9B) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), including increases under the Defence Enterprise Collective Agreement 2009 after his employment had terminated.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because employer superannuation contributions required to be paid to the Board and into the PSSAP Fund were not an allowance payable to the employee in each week for the purposes of s 8(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The applicant also could not rely on s 8(6)(c) for the Defence Enterprise Collective Agreement 2009 increases because the Tribunal had found he had already reached the highest level in the salary range for his position, and the increases were not increments in a range of salary, wages or pay. His weekly compensation was therefore to be increased only by reference to the index prescribed for s 8(9B).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'Costs be reserved.']