Mohammed Ali v Saad Bros Constructions Pty Ltd and others [2001] NSWCC 109 (26 April 2001)

Last Updated: 5 September 2001

NEW SOUTH WALES COMPENSATION COURT

CITATION: Mohammed Ali v Saad Bros Constructions Pty Ltd and others [2001] NSWCC 109 revised - 04/09/2001


PARTIES:
Mohammed Ali
v
Saad Bros Constructions Pty Limited
and
Ely Lel-Agha t/as Millenium Painting
and
WorkCover Authority of New South Wales


CASE NUMBER: 43671 of 2000 of 2001.00


CATCH WORDS: Elements of Workers Compensation


LEGISLATION CITED:


CORAM: Neilson J

DATES OF HEARING: 26 April 2001

EX TEMPORE DATE: 26/04/2001


LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

FOR APPLICANT:
Mr T Meakes instructed by Beston Macken McManis appeared for the applicant.
FOR RESPONDENT:
Mr P K Mansfield instructed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal appeared for the first respondent.
Mr A J Candy instructed by William Clinton, WorkCover Authority appeared for the third respondent.


JUDGMENT:

1. In this matter the applicant claimed that he was employed by the second respondent Mr Eli Lel-Agha. It is alleged on 13 February 1999 whilst employed by Mr Lel-Agha the applicant fell off a ladder and suffered serious injury. The current form of the application for determination nominates as the first respondent Saad Bros Constructions Pty Ltd who it is alleged was insured by AMP Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited. That respondent is said to be liable pursuant to s 20 of the Act; that is, as a principal to whom Mr Lel-Agha had subcontracted.

2. The third respondent, the WorkCover Authority of New South Wales, has been joined as administrator of the Uninsured Liability and Indemnity Scheme. According to the answer filed on behalf of the first respondent no issue has been tendered; firstly, that there was a contract between the first respondent and Mr Lel-Agha such that the first respondent is a principal within the meaning of s 20 nor has any issue been tendered that the first respondent is not insured as alleged in the application for determination. Under s 40(4) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 a claim cannot be made under the Uninsured Liability and Indemnity Scheme if the person claiming compensation is entitled under s 20 to claim compensation against a principal within the meaning of the s 20.

3. The claim against the third respondent is not competent. I make an Award for the third respondent.

Mr T Meakes instructed by Beston Macken McManis appeared for the applicant.
Mr P K Mansfield instructed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal appeared for the first respondent.
Mr A J Candy instructed by William Clinton, WorkCover Authority, appeared for the third respondent.