NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : (2003) 56 NSWLR 736
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : Lembcke v SAS Trustee Corporation [2003] NSWCA 136 HEARING DATE(S) : 06/05/2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 29 May 2003
JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Santow JA at 9; Ipp JA at 54 DECISION : 1. The appeal is allowed; 2. The orders of the trial judge are set aside as also the decision of the SAS Trustee Corporation; 3. Pursuant to s10(1A)(b), the Appellant should receive an additional amount by way of annual superannuation allowance of $20.74 per week which, when added to the amount presently received by way of additional amount of $47.06 totals $67.80 per week; 4. The Respondent to pay the Appellant's costs of the appeal and of the proceedings in the Compensation Court of New South Wales.
CATCHWORDS : POLICE REGULATION (SUPERANNUATION) ACT 1906 - approach to the assessment of additional entitlement to superannuation allowance under s10(1A) - whether proper to have recourse to the principles of s40 Workers Compensation Act 1987 - assessment of incapacity for work Compensation Court Act 1984 (NSW) s32(1) LEGISLATION CITED : Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 s10(1A) Police Regulation (Superannuation and Appeals) Amendment Act 1979 Workers' Compensation Act 1987 s40 Atkin v Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Co Austin (Ltd) (1945) 46 SR(NSW) 20 Carrette v SAS Trustee Corporation (2001) NSWCCR 586 Re Goodyear Australia Limited (2002) 167 FLR 1 Malcolm Towers v SAS Trustee Corporation (Bishop J, Compensation Court of New South Wales No 4223 of 2001, 10 July 2002, unreported) CASES CITED : The National Insurance Company of New Zealand Limited v Espagne (1961) 105 CLR 569 Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 Pira Pty Ltd v Tucker (1996) 14 NSWCCR 26 Poole v State Authorities Superannuation Board (2000) 20 NSWCCR 633 Shepherd v State Authority Superannuation Board (1996) NSWCCR 710 PARTIES : Neil LEMBCKE (Appellant) SAS TRUSTEE CORPORATION (Respondent) FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40937/02 COUNSEL : R W Seton, SC/ K Sant (Appellant) J D Hislop, QC/ T M Ower (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Oates & Smith (Appellant) Brian Matthews - SAS Trustee Corporation (Respondent)
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