Compensation Court of New South Wales CITATION : Mohammed Ali v Saad Bros Constructions Pty Ltd and others [2001] NSWCC 109 revised - 04/09/2001 Mohammed Ali v Saad Bros Constructions Pty Limited PARTIES : and Ely Lel-Agha t/as Millenium Painting and WorkCover Authority of New South Wales MATTER NUMBER(S) : 43671 of 2000 JUDGMENT OF: Neilson J at 1 CATCHWORDS: Elements of Workers Compensation :- LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 26 April 2001 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 04/26/2001 FOR APPLICANT: Mr T Meakes instructed by Beston Macken McManis appeared for the applicant. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: FOR RESPONDENT: Mr P K Mansfield instructed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal appeared for the first respondent. Mr A J Candy instructed by William Clinton, WorkCover Authority appeared for the third respondent. JUDGMENT: 1. In this matter the applicant claimed that he was employed by the second respondent Mr Eli Lel-Agha. It is alleged on 13 February 1999 whilst employed by Mr Lel-Agha the applicant fell off a ladder and suffered serious injury. The current form of the application for determination nominates as the first respondent Saad Bros Constructions Pty Ltd who it is alleged was insured by AMP Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited. That respondent is said to be liable pursuant to s 20 of the Act; that is, as a principal to whom Mr Lel-Agha had subcontracted. 2. The third respondent, the WorkCover Authority of New South Wales, has been joined as administrator of the Uninsured Liability and Indemnity Scheme. According to the answer filed on behalf of the first respondent no issue has been tendered; firstly, that there was a contract between the first respondent and Mr Lel-Agha such that the first respondent is a principal within the meaning of s 20 nor has any issue been tendered that the first respondent is not insured as alleged in the application for determination. Under s 40(4) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 a claim cannot be made under the Uninsured Liability and Indemnity Scheme if the person claiming compensation is entitled under s 20 to claim compensation against a principal within the meaning of the s 20. 3. The claim against the third respondent is not competent. I make an Award for the third respondent. Mr T Meakes instructed by Beston Macken McManis appeared for the applicant. Mr P K Mansfield instructed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal appeared for the first respondent. Mr A J Candy instructed by William Clinton, WorkCover Authority, appeared for the third respondent. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.