AUSTRALIAN IRON AND STEEL PTY LTD v MAUDE [1994] NSWCA 10

AUSTRALIAN IRON AND STEEL PTY LTD v MAUDE

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY, PRIESTLEY and POWELL JJA 7 June 1994, 7 June 1994 [1994] NSWCA 10

WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT s66(1) and s67 — permanent impairment of back — worker entitled to fifteen per cent of the one hundred per cent amount prescribed.

The respondent worker suffered a permanent impairment of his back and was awarded a lump sum under s66(1) of the Workers Compensation Act. He was also awarded a sum under s67.

Held: The better construction in the present case of the formula "falls within the range of nought to sixty per cent at the level of fifteen per cent" was as meaning that the respondent worker within the range applicable to impaired backs fell at the level of the number fifteen on a scale of sixty. Hence, the respondent worker was entitled to compensation of fifteen per cent of the one hundred per cent amount prescribed under s66(1).

Priestley JA This appeal raises one point which is within a very small compassbut which is rather troublesome. The point arises in regard to an award made by his Honour Judge Manser in the Compensation Court under s66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

In the proceedings, which were dealt with in two stages, his Honour first awarded weekly compensation and later dealt with the questions arising under s66 and s67 which flowed from the fact that he had found that the worker, the respondent in this appeal, had suffered a permanent impairment of his back from the compensible injury.

What his Honour did in relation to the s66 claim was to describe in general terms the effect the injury had on the respondent's back and then to say that there was no doubt that the impairment of his back was permanent and to go on in these words: "When I compare this young man's case with the most extreme one I am satisfied that he falls within the range of nought to sixty per cent (sixty per cent being the most extreme case) at the level of fifteen per cent, that is to say he is entitled to compensation of fifteen per cent of the amount prescribed under s66(1) which at the date of his injury was the sum of $83,400. So that is $12,510. "