Ding v Electra Lift Co Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCC 35

Ding v Electra Lift Co Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCC 35

The applicant's statement on 19 December 2001 that he would ask the boss to do workers compensation conveyed only a future intention, was oral rather than written, and was not accompanied by medical material; it did not substantially comply with s 65 before 1 January 2002. The first documents capable of constituting substantial compliance were generated after 31 December 2001. Therefore the Compensation Court lacked jurisdiction over the weekly payments claim insofar as it related to the alleged lung injury of 4 December 2001. However, claims relating to the 9 November 1994 left foot injury were within jurisdiction as related claims because a compensation claim had been made before 1...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Proceedings; Motion on Notice to Strike Out Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Respondent's Motion
Outcome
The motion to strike out was only partly successful; the Court held that part of the application was within jurisdiction and part was not, ordered the applicant to amend the application, and ordered the Allianz respondent to pay the worker's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['making a Claim for Compensation' 'existing Claim Matters' 'compensation Court Jurisdiction' 'strike Out Application' 'substantial Compliance With Claim Requirements']
['workers Compensation' 'civil Procedure' 'jurisdiction'] ['making a Claim for Compensation' 'existing Claim Matters' 'compensation Court Jurisdiction' 'strike Out Application' 'substantial Compliance With Claim Requirements']

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 Proceedings; Motion on Notice to Strike Out Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Respondent's Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be struck out for non-compliance with claim requirements under the Workplace Injury Management & Workers Compensation Act 1998.' 'Whether the Compensation Court had jurisdiction because a claim for compensation for the 4 December 2001 injury was made before 1 January 2002.' "Whether the applicant's 19 December 2001 oral statement to his supervisor substantially complied with s 65 of the Workplace Injury Management & Workers Compensation Act 1998." "Whether claims relating to the 9 November 1994 left foot injury were related claims within the Court's jurisdiction."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's statement on 19 December 2001 that he would ask the boss to do workers compensation conveyed only a future intention, was oral rather than written, and was not accompanied by medical material; it did not substantially comply with s 65 before 1 January 2002. The first documents capable of constituting substantial compliance were generated after 31 December 2001. Therefore the Compensation Court lacked jurisdiction over the weekly payments claim insofar as it related to the alleged lung injury of 4 December 2001. However, claims relating to the 9 November 1994 left foot injury were within jurisdiction as related claims because a compensation claim had been made before 1...

Court Disposition

The motion to strike out was only partly successful; the Court held that part of the application was within jurisdiction and part was not, ordered the applicant to amend the application, and ordered the Allianz respondent to pay the worker's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The applicant file and serve an amended application for determination consonant with the reasons for judgment within 14 days.' "The matter be mentioned again after the judge's return from circuit and vacation on 5 August 2002." "The respondent in the interests of Allianz Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd pay the...