Australia: Insurer´s agreement to 15% or greater whole person impairment can be restricted to s66/67 claims for lump sum compensation and is not binding for a work injury damages claim under Workers Compensation Act

Last Updated: 15 April 2008
Article by Samantha Hubbard

Case Note: JC Equipment Hire Pty Limited -v- The Registrar Of The Workers Compensation Commission Of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 43

31 March 2008

Tobias, Campbell and Bell JAA

In Brief

  • The NSW Court of Appeal has decided that an agreement on the degree of permanent impairment suffered by a worker with respect to a claim for lump sum compensation under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 ("the 1987 Act") has no impact on whether the 15% whole person impairment threshold for a work injury damages claim has been met, as required by s 151H of the 1987 Act.
  • Therefore, even though an insurer agreed on a finding of 16% whole person impairment for lump sum compensation, the insurer was still able to dispute whether the worker had reached the 15% threshold when a claim for work injury damages was made.


Claim for Lump Sum Compensation

  • On 23 November 2003, Roy Lovett ("the Worker") sustained a compensable injury to his back whilst in the employment of J C Equipment Hire Pty Ltd ("the Employer"). On 31 August 2005, the Worker's solicitor made a claim upon the Employer for lump sum compensation under s 66 and compensation for pain and suffering under s 67 of the 1987 Act. In a letter dated 8 December 2005, the Employer's workers compensation insurer ("the Insurer") accepted the Worker's solicitor's claim of 16% whole person impairment calculated at $21,500.
  • However, the Insurer disputed the $20,000 claimed under s 67 for compensation for pain and suffering. This dispute could not be resolved and an Application to Resolve a Dispute was lodged with the Commission. This claim was eventually agreed at $15,000 during a Teleconference.
  • On 9 March 2006, Arbitrator Georgiadis issued a Certificate pursuant to s 295 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 ("the 1998 Act"), noting that the parties had agreed to settle the s 66 and s 67 claims for the amounts stated above. The Certificate noted that the agreement was not a determination of the Commission. On 24 March 2006, a s 66A Agreement was registered with the Commission which reflected the agreement stated above.

Claim for Common Law Damages

  • On 14 March 2006, the Worker's solicitors served on the Insurer a claim for work injury damages for past and future economic loss.
  • s 151H (1) of the 1987 Act provides:

"No damages may be awarded unless the injury results & in a degree of permanent impairment of the injured worker that is at least 15%"

  • In a letter dated 22 June 2006, the Insurer's solicitor wrote to the Worker's solicitor stating that they did not accept that the degree of permanent impairment of the Worker was at least 15%. This was supported by the medical report of Dr Machart dated 5 May 2006, who had medically examined the Worker after the work injury damages claim had been made and assessed 12% whole person impairment. The insurer then stated that, because a dispute had arisen, it would be necessary for the Worker to obtain a medical assessment certificate from the Commission in accordance with s 313 and 314(2)(b) of the 1998 Act.
  • s 313 of the 1998 Act states that if there is a dispute, a Pre-Filing Statement cannot be served unless the degree of permanent impairment of a worker has been assessed by an approved medical specialist.
  • s 314(1)(a) of the 1998 Act which states that a dispute will be considered to have arisen if:

"The person on whom the claim is made has not accepted the degree of permanent impairment of the injured worker resulting from the injury is at least 15%."

  • The Insurer's solicitors alleged that the agreement in relation to the lump sum compensation did not determine whether the Worker had met the 15% threshold for the purposes of work injury damages under s 314 of the 1998 Act.
  • On 11 August 2006, despite the Insurer's contention, the Worker's solicitors served upon the Insurer's solicitors a Pre-Filing Statement with an attached Statement of Claim alleging that the Worker's injury was caused by the Insured's negligence and claiming past and future economic loss.
  • In a letter dated 16 August 2006, the Insurer's solicitors wrote to the Worker's solicitors alleging that the Pre-Filing Statement was defective as it had been served in breach of s 313 of the 1998 Act because:
  • The Insurer had not accepted that the Worker's degree of permanent impairment was at least 15%, pursuant to s 314(2)(a) of the 1998 Act; and
  • No medical assessment certificate certifying the degree of permanent impairment was at least 15% had been issued, pursuant to s 314(2)(b) of the 1998 Act.
  • The dispute as to whether the worker had met the 15% permanent impairment threshold was referred to the Commission for determination. On 30 August 2006, the Registrar's delegate determined that, by virtue of the s 66A Agreement, the Insurer had accepted that the Worker's degree of permanent impairment was at least 15%, and that therefore, s 314(2)(a) had been satisfied. The Registrar concluded that the Pre-Filing Statement served by the Worker's solicitors was therefore not defective.

Supreme Court decision

  • The Insurer, on behalf of the Employer, filed a Summons in the Administrative Law List of the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court on 26 September 2006, seeking a declaration that the Registrar's determination was invalid, and that it be quashed or otherwise set aside.
  • Associate Justice Malpass of the Supreme Court was required to consider whether an agreement by an insurer that the degree of permanent impairment of a worker was a particular percentage, being 15% or greater, for the purpose of calculating the statutory lump sum compensation under s 66 of the 1987 Act constitutes acceptance that the degree of permanent impairment of the worker resulting from the relevant injury is sufficient to satisfy the s 151H(1) threshold for an award for work injury damages.
  • The primary question raised by the parties in the Supreme Court matter was whether or not there was a dispute as to the 15% threshold requirement so as to make defective the service of a Pre-Filing Statement before the commencement of proceedings in the District Court. The insurer alleged that the only way in which acceptance of the permanent impairment threshold required by s 314 of the 1998 Act could be made in respect of the claim for work injury damages was by express notification, pursuant to s 281(2B).
  • On 20 April 2007, His Honour decided that, by virtue of the s 66A Agreement, there was no dispute as to whether the 15% threshold had been met and that, accordingly, the Pre-Filing Statement served by the Worker's solicitors was not defective.

Court of Appeal

Insurer's Submissions

  • Upon appeal, the Insurer submitted that an acceptance that the degree of permanent impairment is sufficient for an award of damages in relation to a claim for work injury damages can only be made by express notification, after the claim for work injury damages is formally made. Further, it was submitted that in the absence of any such express notification, a dispute within the meaning of s 313 of the 1998 Act would arise. It was also submitted that a s 66 Agreement did not enjoy the status of an award of the Commission and that accordingly, any such reliance on it by the Worker was misplaced. The insurer argued that the purpose of the parties' agreement of 16% permanent impairment was solely for the purpose of resolving the Worker's claim to statutory lump sum compensation. Emphasis was placed on the Insurer not being able to accept the work injury damages threshold had been met at the time that the lump sum compensation dispute was resolved, because at that point in time, a claim for work injury damages had not been made.
  • The Insurer relied on the clear distinction between "compensation" and "work injury damages" in the legislation. The Insurer alleged that, even if liability was accepted in relation to a claim for lump sum compensation, an insurer was still permitted to dispute liability in relation to a claim for work injury damages, because liability for work injury damages is dependent upon some fault on the part of the employer.

Worker's Submissions

  • The Worker submitted that the present legislative situation with respect to workers compensation had been brought about by "radical" changes in 2001, and had resulted in the dichotomy between statutory compensation and work injury damages being blurred. It was submitted that a worker was now compensated by both statutory compensation and an award of past and future economic loss in an "overall compensation package". The Worker then submitted that the unified scheme required an assessment of the degree of permanent impairment of an injured worker either by agreement or a medical assessment certificate. It was submitted that there should be a consistent approach to the determination of the degree of permanent impairment such that a person will be bound by an agreement for all purposes, including whether the degree of permanent impairment is sufficient for an award of work injury damages.
  • The Worker submitted that the hybrid scheme would be brought into disrepute if parties were permitted to accept a degree of permanent impairment for lump sum compensation and then change their position to assert a lower degree of impairment once a work injury damages claim has been made.

Court of Appeal Decision

  • The New South Wales Court of Appeal handed down its decision on 31 March 2008. The leading judgment in the Court of Appeal was delivered by Tobias JA, with whom Campbell and Bell JAA agreed.
  • Tobias JA accepted the submissions of the Insurer. Despite the Worker's submissions, His Honour decided that there was no doubt that the Insurer's acceptance of 16% whole person impairment was related only to the claim for s 66 lump sum compensation.
  • This conclusion was partially based upon the fact that a finding of greater than 15% impairment had significant financial consequences for an insurer regarding a work injury damages claim, in comparison to the relatively small financial consequences in relation to a claim for s 66 lump sum compensation.
  • His Honour noted that the workers' compensation legislation anticipated two different claims by the injured worker; firstly, a claim for lump sum compensation and secondly, a claim for work injury damages. His Honour rejected the Worker's submissions that the dichotomy between statutory compensation and work injury damages had been blurred by allowing a worker to retain compensation received under s 66 and s 67 and work injury damages being limited to past and present economic loss.
  • His Honour was of the opinion that there was no useful purpose in:

"Binding a person on whom a claim for work injury damages has been made to an agreement or acceptance by that person of a particular degree of permanent impairment (which is at least 15%) made for the purpose of enabling a calculation of permanent impairment compensation to be made in accordance with the mathematical formulae set forth in s 66(2) of the 1987 Act."

  • His Honour rejected the claim made by the Worker that there was no injustice to an insurer in holding it to its acceptance of the degree of permanent impairment in relation to lump sum compensation. His Honour was of the opinion that s 151H(1) had a broader purpose of promoting the avoidance of the costs of litigating small claims. Tobias JA believed that if an insurer was held bound by an agreement of the degree of permanent impairment for the purposes of calculating s 66 compensation, then the prospect of the subsequent work injury damages was likely to inhibit the insurer from settling the claim. It was thought that this would inevitably lead to unnecessary disputes which would involve a cost to the community, the court and the parties.
  • In conclusion, Tobias JA was of the opinion that the primary judge erred in upholding the determination of the Registrar's delegate and that that determination, on its face, revealed an error of law which must be remedied.


  • Insurers will no longer need to incur costs disputing s 66 claims in fear that an acceptance of a degree of permanent impairment greater than 15% will leave them exposed to a work injury damages claim.
  • However, despite this decision, it would be prudent for insurers in the future in appropriate cases to specifically state that any agreement on the degree of permanent impairment in relation to a claim for lump sum compensation under s 66 is limited to that particular claim, and cannot be extended to a potential work injury damages claim.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.