Crispino v Burns

[2007] ACTCA 7

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Notice of claim
3. › Motor vehicle personal injury
4. › Whether workers' compensation insurer exercising subrogated rights is the 'claimant'
5. › Whether notice requirement applies where claim brought by statutory subrogee in employee's name
6. › Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), ss 49, 51, 225
7. › Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s 50
1. Workers' Compensation
2. › Subrogation
3. › Statutory right to bring claim in employee's name
4. › Nature of right conferred by s 50 of Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
5. › Whether statutory subrogation or separate cause of action
6. › Whether employee remains 'claimant' when Comcare exercises subrogated rights

Quick Take

Where Comcare exercises its statutory right under s 50 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) to bring a claim in the name of an injured employee, the employee remains the 'claimant' for the purposes of the notice of claim requirement in s 51 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT). The right conferred by s 50 is a statutory right of subrogation, not a separate cause of action.

Case Details

Citation[2007] ACTCA 7

CourtACTCA

JurisdictionAustralian Capital Territory

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on2

2001WorkCover Queensland v Seltsam Pty LimitedNSWCA 457
1974Tickle Industries Pty Ltd v HannHCA 5

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in