Wrigley v Holland

(2002) 23 NSWCCR 463; [2002] NSWCA 109

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Workers Compensation
2. › Weekly compensation
3. › Partial incapacity
4. › Section 40 discretion
5. › Whether trial judge erred in awarding substantially more than amount sought by worker's counsel without giving reasons
6. › Whether worker's pregnancy relevant to exercise of discretion
7. › Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 40
1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Right to be heard
4. › Workers compensation proceedings
5. › Whether employer denied opportunity to address court on award substantially exceeding amount sought by worker
6. › Whether denial of procedural fairness
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Duty to give reasons
4. › Failure to address material submission
5. › Whether failure to refer to submission amounts to failure to consider it

Quick Take

Under s 40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), a trial judge exercising the discretion to award weekly compensation is bound to take into account the amount sought by the worker's counsel, and if awarding substantially more, must give adequate reasons for doing so. A worker's pregnancy and its consequences are highly relevant to the exercise of the s 40(1) discretion and failure to take them into account is an error of law. Where a judge proposes to award substantially more than either party sought, procedural fairness requires that the opposing party be given an opportunity to address on that question.