Abrahams v St Virgil's College - [1998] TASSC 53

53/1998

PARTIES:  ABRAHAMS, Adrian
  v
  ST VIRGIL'S COLLEGE

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 99/1997
DELIVERED:  11 May 1998
HEARING DATE/S:  7, 8 April 1998
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation - Sufficiency of evidence and onus of proof - Particular accidents and diseases - Mental and nervous disorders - Stress arising out of employment - What constitutes reasonable administrative action - Whether stress caused by reasonable administrative action.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), s25(1A).
WorkCover Corporation of South Australia v Summers (1995) 65 SASR 243, applied.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [71]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  B R McTaggart
             Respondent:  A G Ogilvie
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Jennings Elliott
             Respondent:  Hand Ogilvie & Breheny

Court Computer Code:
Judgment ID Number:  53/1998
Number of pages:  9

Serial No 53/1998
File No LCA 99/1997

ADRIAN ABRAHAMS v ST VIRGIL'S COLLEGE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J

11 May 1998

The Order of the Tribunal

On 26 September 1997, the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal made an order that the respondent was entitled to terminate weekly payments and thereafter was not liable to pay workers compensation in respect of the appellant's injury (being a disease) alleged in his claim for compensation dated 24 September 1996. On this appeal, the appellant claims that the order is tainted with error of law.

The Findings of Fact

The appellant had been employed as a teacher at the respondent school since 1988. On 9 November 1994, he was appointed Director of Studies at the respondent's Barrack Street campus for the years 1995 and 1996. This was the second senior position at this campus. Mrs Allardice was the person in charge of the Barrack Street campus and answerable to the school Principal. As Director of Studies, the appellant was responsible to Mrs Allardice for the proper discharge of his teaching duties and a range of non-teaching duties, including, in particular, development, leadership and evaluation of educational programs. With the establishment of the Guilford Young College, the appellant's duties at the Barrack Street campus diminished. 1996 was the last year the respondent conducted its school at Barrack Street and in that year there were only about ninety Year 10 students in attendance.
Brother Barclay was appointed the Principal of the respondent's school in 1995. The Tribunal found that shortly after his appointment, Brother Barclay noted entries in the appellant's file to the effect that in 1994 his predecessor had some concerns about the appellant, viz, possible consumption of alcohol while on duty; below standard teaching performance; and an absence from a two day seminar. However, Brother Barclay did nothing, other than note that these concerns had been the subject of meetings and discussions between the appellant, his predecessor and others.
However, on 6 March 1996, Brother Barclay did have reason to speak to the appellant about his teaching load. It appears that one of the appellant's duties was the allocation of teaching duties to other members of staff. Noting that the student population…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Abrahams v St Virgil's College and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1998] TASSC 53
Decision Date: 11 May 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Abrahams v St Virgil's College is an appeal against a decision of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal, which found that the appellant, Adrian Abrahams, was not entitled to compensation for a disease he claimed arose from his employment as a teacher. The Tribunal held that the disease arose substantially from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner by the employer, thus exempting the employer from liability under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), s25(1A). The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in finding that the letter he received from his employer, Brother Barclay, which outlined several issues to be discussed, constituted reasonable administrative action. He also contended that the Tribunal failed to determine whether the cause of his disease was substantial as required by the Act.

Underwood J reviewed the Tribunal's findings, which were that the appellant's health first became affected by the disciplinary proceedings initiated by Brother Barclay and that the receipt of the letter from Brother Barclay on 4 September 1996 was the key incident that initiated his illness. The Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary action was reasonable in the circumstances and taken in a reasonable manner. The Tribunal also found that giving notice of the meeting and the discussion of other topics was reasonable administrative action. The appellant alleged that the Tribunal misdirected itself with respect to the appropriate law and that no Tribunal, acting reasonably and properly instructed as to the law, could have found that the receipt of the letter constituted reasonable administrative action.

Underwood J dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's conclusion that the receipt of the letter constituted reasonable administrative action was not erroneous. The judge noted that the letter addressed issues of a general nature that went beyond the minutiae of the appellant's job as a teacher and affected the whole staff, students, and management of the school. The judge also rejected the notion that an employer would only be liable to pay compensation for injury being a disease when the employer had acted unreasonably, stating that such a notion was not supported by the language of the Act. The judge concluded that the Tribunal did not err in finding that the receipt of the letter was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders