A recent South Australian Court of Appeal decision has clarified how income compensation should be calculated for an injured firefighter covered by the Additional Compensation provisions in the Firefighting Industry Employees (South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service) Award 2007. 

The decision is important for injured workers because it confirms that, where the relevant award requires it, income compensation calculations must reflect wage increases applicable to the worker’s classification. That may include historical enterprise agreement increases that were not originally applied. 

The decision 

In United Firefighters Union of South Australia Inc v Chief Executive, Attorney-General’s Department & Anor [2026] SASCA 79, the Court considered the entitlements of injured firefighter Stephen Kancheff. 

Mr Kancheff suffered a work injury while employed by the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service. After receiving statutory weekly payments under the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA), he became entitled to benefits under Schedule 1 of the Firefighting Industry Employees (South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service) Award 2007. 

The dispute arose after the 2022 enterprise agreement introduced wage increases of: 

• 2.5% from January 2021; 

• 2.5% from January 2022; and 

• 3% from January 2023. 

SAFECOM reviewed Mr Kancheff’s income compensation and applied the 2022 and 2023 increases, but not the 2021 increase. SAFECOM’s position was that the 2021 increase should not apply because Mr Kancheff was still receiving weekly payments under the Return to Work Act at that time. 

What the Court decided 

The Court of Appeal unanimously found in favour of Mr Kancheff. 

The Award required his income compensation to be adjusted to reflect “any increases” in the rates of remuneration for his classification. The Court held that those words should be given their ordinary meaning. The entitlement was not limited to increases that occurred after his statutory weekly payments had ceased or after his Additional Compensation claim commenced. 

The practical result was that all three increases — from 2021, 2022 and 2023 — were required to be included when reviewing Mr Kancheff’s notional weekly earnings under his Additional Compensation claim. 

In short: the Court rejected an interpretation that would exclude an earlier wage increase simply because the worker was still receiving statutory weekly payments when that increase took effect. 

Why this matters for injured workers 

Under the Return to Work Act, most injured workers are only entitled to statutory weekly payments for a limited period. Workers who are not seriously injured generally do not receive ongoing statutory weekly payments beyond the usual statutory period. 

Some public sector workers, however, may also have rights under an Additional Compensation scheme contained in an award or enterprise agreement. Those schemes can provide important benefits after statutory weekly payments cease. 

If a worker’s Additional Compensation payments are calculated using an outdated wage rate, or without all relevant award or enterprise agreement increases, the worker may be underpaid. 

This decision is therefore significant because it confirms that the wording of the applicable award or enterprise agreement must be carefully applied. If the scheme requires an adjustment for “any increases” in remuneration, an employer or compensating authority may not be able to exclude an increase merely because it occurred before Additional Compensation payments began. 

Could this affect other public sector workers? 

Potentially, yes — but it will depend on the wording of the particular award, enterprise agreement or Additional Compensation scheme. 

The decision may be relevant to injured workers in public sector roles where Additional Compensation benefits are linked to award or enterprise agreement rates, including: 

• firefighters; 

• police officers; 

• ambulance officers; 

• correctional officers; and 

• other public sector employees covered by an Additional Compensation scheme. 

The key question is not simply whether a worker is a public sector employee. The critical question is what the applicable award or enterprise agreement says about adjusting income compensation, notional weekly earnings, or equivalent wage-based entitlements. 

What injured workers should check 

If you have an accepted Additional Compensation claim, it may be worth checking whether your payments have been calculated correctly. In particular, consider whether: 

• your notional weekly earnings have been reviewed using the correct classification rate; 

• all relevant enterprise agreement or award wage increases have been included; 

• any historical wage increases were omitted because they took effect while you were still receiving statutory weekly payments; 

• the review has applied the current wording of your award or enterprise agreement; and 

• you may have been underpaid and should seek advice about a review or correction. 

Why legal advice is important 

Every Additional Compensation scheme is different. The outcome in any particular case will depend on the wording of the applicable award or enterprise agreement, the timing of the wage increases, and the history of the worker’s compensation payments. 

For that reason, this decision should not be treated as an automatic entitlement to increased payments in every case. It does, however, provide a strong reason for injured workers with Additional Compensation claims to have their calculations reviewed. 

Our view 

The Court of Appeal’s decision is a significant outcome for injured workers covered by Additional Compensation schemes. It confirms that those schemes should be interpreted by reference to their actual wording and purpose, rather than narrowed by technical arguments that reduce the benefit available to workers. 

For injured firefighters and other public sector workers, the decision may provide an opportunity to review whether income compensation has been correctly assessed, whether all relevant wage increases have been applied, and whether any underpayment should be pursued. 

This article is general information only. It is not legal advice. Injured workers should obtain advice about their own award, enterprise agreement and compensation history before taking any action.