DWF Logo

Search

DWF Logo

            Legal Alert: SS Family Pty Ltd v WorkCover Queensland

            The Court of Appeal recently delivered its reasons in SS Family Pty Ltd v WorkCover Queensland, granting leave to the Defendant (Vero) to appeal but dismissing such appeal with costs.

            Date: 15/11/2018

            The decision is significant insofar as it answers a question that has over decades been raised, advised upon but not judicially determined - whether having earlier accepted an application for compensation by a person claiming to have been a worker injured while working for an employer, is the insurer precluded from subsequently contending the person was not a worker as a basis for denying the alleged employer is entitled to indemnity under the policy of accident insurance?

            The reasons reference:

            • the construction contended for by the applicant, that a mistaken decision by the insurer that the claiming person was a worker and hence accepting the application for compensation, bars the insurer from denying indemnity against the liability of an employer to pay damages, is irreconcilable with the definition of accident insurance in section 8;
            • there are differences between the obligations: of the insurer to pay compensation and that of the insurer to indemnify in relation to a legal liability for damages;
            • ·various provisions identified are consistent with a decision to allow an application for compensation only having effect in relation to compensation;
            • the definition of worker in section 11 ought be applied in determining the indemnity available to an employer under the policy of accident insurance in section 8 and the close connection between a decision by an insurer to allow an application for compensation and the regulation of damages claims, does not subjugate that;
            •  the construction of s237(1) is clear – abolishes any entitlement to damages other than  for injury sustained by a worker and an earlier decision to accept an application for compensation under section 134 does not undermine such construction;
            • the odd, capricious and unintended consequences alleged to flow from the primary decision are not so.

            The reasons in SS Family Pty Ltd v WorkCover Queensland [2018] QCA 296 can be found here

             

            Related people

            We use cookies to give you the best user experience on our website. Please let us know if you accept our use of cookies.

            Learn More

            Your Privacy

            When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. We mainly use this information to ensure the site works as you expect it to, and to learn how we can improve the experience in the future. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalised web experience.
            Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change permissions. However, blocking some types of cookies may prevent certain site functionality from working as expected

            Functional cookies

            (Required)

            These cookies let you use the website and are required for the website to function as expected.

            These cookies are required

            Tracking cookies

            Anonymous cookies that help us understand the performance of our website and how we can improve the website experience for our users. Some of these may be set by third parties we trust, such as Google Analytics.

            They may also be used to personalise your experience on our website by remembering your preferences and settings.

            Marketing cookies

            These cookies are used to improve and personalise your experience with our brands. We may use these cookies to show adverts for our products, or measure the performance of our adverts.