CHINESE DAILY NEWSPAPER v SHA CHENG WANG SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CLARKE, MEAGHER and Cripps JJA 7 July 1992, 7 July 1992 [1992] NSWCA 39 Workers Compensation — adequacy of reasons given by Compensation Court judge for the decision made This is an appeal from the Chief Judge of the Compensation Court alleging his Honour erred in failing to give adequate reasons for the orders made. Held: No error found. Workers Compensation Act 1987 Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247. Clarke JA Mr Leslie, not without some regret, the Court does not wish to hear from you and the Court will give its judgment now. Mr Justice Cripps will give the first judgment. Cripps JA This is an appeal from the decision of the Chief Judge of the Compensation Court, published on 5 April 1991, in which he directed, by consent, certain compensation payments to be made to the respondent pursuant to s66 and s67 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and awarded interest upon that amount of money to run from the date of injury, which was 18 April 1988. Mr Hoeben, who appears for the appellant, [?sic] has informed the Court that the single issue for determination is whether his Honour erred in failing to give adequate reasons in accordance with the decision of this Court in Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247. That is, there is no question in this case but that it was open on the material before the learned judge, applying his mind to the relevant provisions (s19 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the rules made pursuant to the Act), to come to the conclusion he did. Specifically, there is no issue raised as to the amount awarded under s66 or s67. The question for determination by this Court is whether it has been demonstrated, in accordance with the principles in Soulemezis, that there was an error demonstrated by the form in the judge's reasoning and orders. The judgment was extremely short. In the first paragraph the learned judge acknowledged that there was, by consent, an award to be made under s66 and s67, and then his Honour went on as follows: "T note that the respondent does not consent to interest payable from the date of injury, as distinct from the date of the crystallisation of the loss, and reserves its rights thereon. I find that the worker, by reason of the said brain damage, is mentally ill. I direct the compensation monies be paid to the authority for the benefit of the worker." It is conceded by Mr Hoeben that the matter that was argued before his Honour was whether or not the interest should be fixed to run from the date of the injury on 18 April 1988 or whether it should apply from some later date. The respondent's argument before the learned trial judge was that the date of the medical board assessment, Waverley 13 December 1990 was the correct date. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS It is clear, at least to me, that the learned judge approached this case upon the basis that the ninety five per cent loss of brain function as a result of this accident occurred at the time of the injury and for that reason, as Mr Hoeben concedes, the interest component awarded by his Honour, as an exercise of discretion, could have run from that date. It is interesting to note that in the judgment all that is stated, which I accept as correct, is that "the respondent does not consent to interest payable from the date of injury", rather suggesting to me that this point was being reserved rather than the judge, as it were, glossing over the issue and merely stating a conclusion. I have had a look at the three reasons given by McHugh JA in Soulemezis dealing with the question of the purposes to be served by a judge giving reasons, and it seems to me, without elaborating on them and perhaps running the risk of being criticised as the learned trial judge in the Workers Compensation Court has been, that the approach taken by McGrath CJ in this case does not demonstrate any error. It would seem to me, as a matter of common sense, that what his Honour was saying was not that he was bound to fix the time as 18 April, but in the circumstances of this case, that was the appropriate course to adopt. It being conceded that it was open to him to come to that conclusion, I cannot detect any error and, accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal with costs. Clarke JA I agree. Counsel for the appellant invited the Court to make some general statement of relevant applicable principles. However, the evidence in the case was so sparse and apparently the submissions so condensed that the ambit of counsel's submissions before this Court were severely limited. In these circumstances, I would express the view that this is not a suitable case in which to embark upon an analysis of the principles upon which the discretion to award interest should be exercised and I would reserve that exercise for another day. I agree with the orders proposed. Meagher JA I also agree. Clarke JA: The orders will be as Cripps JA has announced. Appeal dismissed with costs. Counsel: Appellant: A. Leslie QC/J Gracie Respondent: C Hoeben Solicitors: Appellant: Connery and Partners Solicitors: Athena Touriki