Programmed Maintenance Services P/L v Savage [2003] NSWCA 20

Programmed Maintenance Services P/L v Savage [2003] NSWCA 20

The appeal failed because the trial judge did not miscarry in exercising the discretion to continue the proceedings after the Notice of Submission to an Award was not accepted, particularly where the notice was confined to an award under s 40 and the respondent sought determination of a declaration that he was a worker; the challenge to the finding that the respondent was employed by the appellant was an impermissible appeal against reasons rather than orders; and no basis was shown to disturb the costs orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Appeal / Appeal From Decisions and Award of the Compensation Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['employee or Independent Contractor' 'worker Within the Meaning of the Workers Compensation Act 1987' 'notice of Submission to an Award' 'total Incapacity and Partial Incapacity' 'costs']
['workers Compensation' 'employment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['employee or Independent Contractor' 'worker Within the Meaning of the Workers Compensation Act 1987' 'notice of Submission to an Award' 'total Incapacity and Partial Incapacity' '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

Workers Compensation Appeal / Appeal From Decisions and Award of the Compensation Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in continuing to hear the proceedings after the respondent did not accept the Notice of Submission to an Award.' "Whether the appellant could appeal against the trial judge's finding in the reasons that the respondent was employed by the appellant." 'Whether there was scope to disturb costs orders made by the trial judge.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the trial judge did not miscarry in exercising the discretion to continue the proceedings after the Notice of Submission to an Award was not accepted, particularly where the notice was confined to an award under s 40 and the respondent sought determination of a declaration that he was a worker; the challenge to the finding that the respondent was employed by the appellant was an impermissible appeal against reasons rather than orders; and no basis was shown to disturb the costs orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['That the appeal be dismissed with costs.']