DEPT OF EDUCATION, PARKES HIGH SCHOOL v HOWLETT [1996] NSWCA 150

DEPT OF EDUCATION, PARKES HIGH SCHOOL v HOWLETT SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

COLE, BEAZLEY JJA and ABADEE AJA 27 November 1996

[1996] NSWCA 150

Lourdes House Hospital v Wheeler (unreported), Court of Appeal, 3 October 1996 followed.

Cole JA The Respondent suffered compensable injuries to her back and legs. On 20 April 1993 Judge McGrath held that her back problems were related to an injury caused on 18 August 1989. His Honour found that she had suffered permanent impairment of her back of twenty per cent and made an order pursuant to s66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. His Honour was not persuaded that she had suffered any loss of function in her legs. A further order for compensation for pain and suffering pursuant to s67 was made in the sum of $15,000 equivalent to 34 per cent of a most extreme case. Thereafter the Respondent underwent further medical procedures.

The second proceedings were commenced by the injured worker for compensation claiming moneys pursuant to s66 and s67 in relation to the Respondent's back injuries and leg injuries. Judge Maguire on 13 February 1996 made orders pursuant to s66 for moneys payable for 50% permanent impairment of the back, 15% loss of the efficient use of the left leg and 10% of the efficient use of the right leg. In addition a s67 payment in the sum of $25,000 was ordered representing 57% of a most extreme case.

On Appeal the employer initially advanced three submissions. The third submission was abandoned at the hearing. The first submission is that the Compensation Court had no power to make the further awards pursuant to s66 and s67. The appropriate procedure where additional sums were sought was to seek a reconsideration pursuant to s17(4) the Compensation Court Act.

The second submission was to similar effect in respect of s67, it being asserted that it makes clear by its terms that only one application pursuant to the section can be brought. Although the written submissions on behalf of the Respondent contended that these two submissions were not advanced in the Court below at the hearing of the Appeal it was accepted that they were.