Jacobs v Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd & Workcover Corporation of SA

(2006) 93 SASR 568; [2006] SASC 32

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Administrative tribunals
3. › Jurisdiction
4. › Collateral challenge to validity of delegated legislation
5. › Whether tribunal has jurisdiction to determine validity of its own rules as collateral issue
6. › Whether challenge limited to simple ultra vires
7. › Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA), ss 86, 88E, 95
1. Administrative Law
2. › Delegated legislation
3. › Validity
4. › Rules of tribunal prescribing scale of costs
5. › Whether rules ultra vires rule-making power
6. › Whether s 95(1) entitlement to reasonable costs excludes rule-making power to prescribe scale of costs
7. › Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA), ss 88E(1)(f), 95
1. Administrative Law
2. › Delegated legislation
3. › Inconsistency between subordinate instruments
4. › Whether rules of tribunal inconsistent with regulations
5. › Direct inconsistency and covering the field tests
6. › Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 1996 (SA), reg 7(2)

Quick Take

The Workers Compensation Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the validity of its own rules as a collateral issue where the challenge is based on simple ultra vires or inconsistency with regulations. The rule-making power in s 88E(1)(f) to regulate costs includes the power to prescribe a scale of costs, and s 95(1) prescribes limits on costs recovery but does not exclude that rule-making power. The decision in Hinton Demolitions Pty Ltd v Lower (No 2) does not preclude collateral challenge to delegated legislation (as distinct from administrative decisions). The question of whether collateral challenge is available on broader grounds (such as Wednesbury unreasonableness or breach of natural justice) was left open.