ACCIDENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION v ALGER

1 VR 379·MARKS, SMITH AND ASHLEY JJ
[1993] 1 VR 379
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION v ALGER SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA APPEAL DIVISION MARKS, SMITH AND ASHLEY JJ 9, 28 September 1992
[1993] 1 VR 379
Accident compensationWorker's "current weekly earnings""Actual earnings during the week"Whether net profits of business conducted by worker constitute worker's "actual earnings"Redemption of weekly benefitsAccident Compensation Act 1985 (No 10191), s5B(1), s93A, s115(2), and s115(6). . S93 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 provides that where a worker's incapacity for work results from or is materially contributed to by compensable injury then compensation shall be in the form of weekly payments subject to and in accordance with Pt4 of the Act. While incapacity for work continues, a worker's ordinary entitlement will be to weekly payments of an amount mainly influenced by whether the worker has "current weekly earnings" (s93A), defined in s5B (1), inter alia, as "the worker's actual earnings during the week". Subs115(2) allows a worker with a compensable permanent incapacity to apply to the Accident Compensation Commission for redemption of the whole or part of the worker's weekly compensation payments for a period of up to 5 years for the purpose of engaging in an approved income-producing project (approved by the Victorian Accident Rehabilitation Council). Terrence Alger received weekly compensation payments for a permanent back injury from 1987 to the time of the appeal (apart from a period when the commission had improperly terminated the payments). Alger applied to the commission for a redemption pursuant to s115(2) of the Act, as he was contemplating purchasing an aquarium business. After substantial enquiry and the taking of financial advice as to the viability of the business, and gaining the approval of the Victorian Accident Rehabilitation Council, Alger and his wife purchased the business. The commission refused the redemption sought. The evidence was that the business was operating at a net loss, and the Accident Compensation Tribunal on appeal concluded that Alger had no "current weekly earnings", as the negative weekly income represented Alger's actual weekly earnings. The commission appealed to the Supreme Court on questions of law.

""

Continue Reading This Report

[1993] 1 VR 379

One-off Purchase

$25
This report only
Permanent access
PDF download
Best Value

Digital Subscription

$45/mo
or $450/yrSAVE $90
All reports included
Unlimited access
Cancel anytime
Don't have an account? Create Account