Ballantyne v Workcover Authority of NSW

[2007] NSWCA 239

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Workers Compensation
2. › Uninsured employer
3. › Reimbursement of WorkCover Authority Fund
4. › Determination of liability by Commission
5. › Relevant considerations in exercise of discretion under s 145(4)
6. › Whether employer's connection with another State and interstate insurance relevant
7. › Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 145
1. Administrative Law
2. › Relevant and irrelevant considerations
3. › Mandatory, permissible and prohibited considerations
4. › Whether matters listed in s 145(2) are mandatory or permissible considerations under s 145(4)
5. › Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 145(2), (4)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Construction of discretionary power
3. › Use of word 'may'
4. › Whether 'may' confers broad discretion or power coupled with obligation
5. › Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 9(1)
6. › Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 145(4)
1. Workers Compensation
2. › Territorial application
3. › Connection with State
4. › Whether workers compensation legislation applies based solely on place of accident
5. › Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 9, 9AA

Quick Take

When the Workers Compensation Commission exercises its discretion under s 145(4) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), an employer's connection with another State and the holding of workers compensation insurance in that State are relevant considerations that must be taken into account when evidence of those matters is adduced and relied upon. The matters listed in s 145(2) are legitimate (but not mandatory) considerations under s 145(4). The correctness of WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Mackley remains open for challenge in a future case.