SAS Trustee Corporation v Schmidtke [2012] NSWCA 269

SAS Trustee Corporation v Schmidtke [2012] NSWCA 269

Although the primary judge erroneously referred to s 323(2), the error was not material because the judge in substance performed the correct exercise required by the transitional provisions: applying a 10% reduction to the compensation payable, not reducing the respondent's whole person impairment below the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Point of Law Concerning a District Court Decision on a Lump Sum Gratuity for Psychological Injury Under the Police Regulation (superannuation) Act 1906 (nsw) / Court of Appeal Determination of Appeal From Ashford DCJ in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['failure to Take Into Account Relevant Considerations' 'appeal Limited to a Determination in Point of Law' 'police Officer Hurt on Duty' 'psychological Injury' 'whole Person Impairment' 'transitional Provisions for Lump Sum Compensation' 'deduction for Previous Injury or Pre Existing Condition']
['administrative Law' 'appeal' 'police Superannuation' 'workers Compensation'] ['failure to Take Into Account Relevant Considerations' 'appeal Limited to a Determination in Point of Law' 'police Officer Hurt on Duty' 'psychological Injury' 'whole Person Impairment' 'transitional Provisions for Lump Sum Compensation' 'deduction for Previous Injury or Pre Existing Condition']

Source-derived case record

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 Point of Law Concerning a District Court Decision on a Lump Sum Gratuity for Psychological Injury Under the Police Regulation (superannuation) Act 1906 (nsw) / Court of Appeal Determination of Appeal From Ashford DCJ in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge made a material error of law by referring to s 323(2) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) when reducing compensation by 10%.' 'Whether the transitional provisions in Sch 6, Pt 18C, cl 3 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) required a reduction in compensation payable rather than a reduction in the percentage of whole person impairment below the statutory threshold.' 'Whether the primary judge failed to take into account the evidence of Ms Gillian Mee as a mandatory relevant consideration.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the primary judge erroneously referred to s 323(2), the error was not material because the judge in substance performed the correct exercise required by the transitional provisions: applying a 10% reduction to the compensation payable, not reducing the respondent's whole person impairment below the statutory threshold. The Commissioner's certificate demonstrated no previous injury, so s 323 had no operation. The complaint about Ms Mee's evidence failed because the primary judge expressly considered it and gave reasons for placing no weight on it, and it was not a mandatory relevant consideration required by law to be taken into account.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "Appellant to pay the respondent's costs in this Court."]