High Court Win for WorkCover Queensland
The High Court has ruled that proceedings commenced by WorkCover to recover $340,000 in compensation payments made to an injured worker (subsequently deceased) were not limited by provisions contained in the Succession Act 1981 (Queensland).
Mr Thompson was exposed to asbestos manufactured and supplied by Amaca Pty Ltd. He contracted mesothelioma, and was subsequently paid $340,000 by WorkCover Queensland in compensation in early 2006. Mr Thompson died as a consequence of his illness in June 2006.
In 2007, WorkCover commenced recovery proceedings against Amaca pursuant to section 272(7) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCRA).
Amaca argued that the damages claimed in WorkCover’s recovery action should be reduced due to the operation of section 66(2) of the Succession Act. Essentially section 66(2) provided that whilst all causes of action vested in the deceased would survive “for the benefit of his estate”, the damages recoverable could not include damages for pain and suffering and future probable earnings.
The High Court found that, as a matter of statutory construction, the operation of the WCRA was not limited by the Succession Act.
It accepted WorKCover’s argument that the Succession Act had no effect on the damages it may recover because the recovery action was WorkCover’s cause of action and not the deceased’s (i.e. an action for the “benefit of the person’s estate”).
The Court said very clear words were needed in the Succession Act to limit WorkCover’s recovery rights under the WCRA. No clear words were evident in section 66(2).
To download a full copy of the judgment click here.
Mr Thompson was exposed to asbestos manufactured and supplied by Amaca Pty Ltd. He contracted mesothelioma, and was subsequently paid $340,000 by WorkCover Queensland in compensation in early 2006. Mr Thompson died as a consequence of his illness in June 2006.
In 2007, WorkCover commenced recovery proceedings against Amaca pursuant to section 272(7) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCRA).
Amaca argued that the damages claimed in WorkCover’s recovery action should be reduced due to the operation of section 66(2) of the Succession Act. Essentially section 66(2) provided that whilst all causes of action vested in the deceased would survive “for the benefit of his estate”, the damages recoverable could not include damages for pain and suffering and future probable earnings.
The High Court found that, as a matter of statutory construction, the operation of the WCRA was not limited by the Succession Act.
It accepted WorKCover’s argument that the Succession Act had no effect on the damages it may recover because the recovery action was WorkCover’s cause of action and not the deceased’s (i.e. an action for the “benefit of the person’s estate”).
The Court said very clear words were needed in the Succession Act to limit WorkCover’s recovery rights under the WCRA. No clear words were evident in section 66(2).
To download a full copy of the judgment click here.