NSW Caselaw
THE WORKCOVER AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v ANGELUCCI and ORS
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
PRIESTLEY and SHELLER JJA 24 November 1997
[1997] NSWCA 350
Priestley JA The Court is of the view leave should not be granted on this summons. The question involved is one of construction primarily of s175(4) and 8277 of the Workers Compensation Act. The contention of the claimant is that the word "employer" in s175(4) should be read broadly in a way to be filled out by considerations emanating from s277.
It is the Court's view that substantially for the reasons given by Finnane AJ the word "employer" cannot be read in s175(4) to include a director by reason of s277. The point appears to the Court to be of sufficient clarity, that is, the construction adopted by Finnane AJ seems to the Court to be sufficiently clear as to have justified him in striking out the statement of claim within the rules commonly described by reference to the General Steel case.
The Court is, therefore, of the view that the summons should be dismissed with cost.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate