Police Service of New South Wales v Honeysett

[2001] NSWCA 452

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Workers Compensation
2. › Employer's right of indemnity against third party
3. › Section 151Z(1)(d) Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
4. › Whether employer entitled to indemnity from negligent employee
5. › Whether Employees Liability Act 1991 (NSW) bars recovery
1. Employment Law
2. › Status of police officers
3. › Whether police constable is an 'employee'
4. › Employees Liability Act 1991 (NSW), s 3
5. › Police Service Act 1990 (NSW)
6. › Effect of legislative integration of police service on employment status
1. Police
2. › Protection from personal liability
3. › Section 213 Police Service Act 1990 (NSW)
4. › Whether driving paddy wagon while on duty constitutes exercise of function with respect to protection of persons or property
1. Statutes
2. › Interpretation
3. › Meaning of 'employee'
4. › Employees Liability Act 1991 (NSW), s 3
5. › Whether undefined term includes police officers
6. › Use of extrinsic materials
7. › Legislative history and purpose

Quick Take

A police constable serving under the Police Service Act 1990 (NSW) is an 'employee' within the meaning of s 3 of the Employees Liability Act 1991 (NSW), and accordingly the Police Service cannot recover indemnity from a negligent constable under s 151Z(1)(d) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). The protection from personal liability under s 213 of the Police Service Act 1990 requires more than the mere fact that the officer was on duty and driving a police vehicle; evidence must establish that the officer was exercising a function with respect to the protection of persons or property.