Avon Products Pty Ltd v Falls - [2009] ACTSC 141

AVON PRODUCTS PTY LTD v MAGRIT FALLS
[2009] ACTSC 141 (19 October 2009)

APPEAL – appeal from the Magistrates Court – appeal against the determination of the State or Territory of connection pursuant to the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) – appeal dismissed
WORKERS COMPENSATION – determination of appropriate state for workers compensation claim – “State or Territory of connection” – “relevant place” of employment – “usually works” – worker’s “base” – whether worker is customarily or routinely required to work in more than one State or Territory – injury occurred outside of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) – worker only required to perform duties in the ACT – the ACT is the state of connection

Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT), Part 4.2A

Workers Compensation Amendment Bill 2003 (No 2) (ACT)
Explanatory Statement, Workers Compensation Amendment Bill 2003 (No 2) (ACT)
Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, Ministers Presentation Speech, 21 November 1996

Michael Hanns v Greyhound Pioneer Australia Ltd [2006] ACTSC 5 (8 February 2006)
Tamboritha Consultants Pty Ltd v Knight [2008] WADC 78 (30 May 2008)

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 26 of 2009

Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 19 October 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 26 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:AVON PRODUCTS PTY LTD
Appellant

AND:MAGRIT FALLS
Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  19 October 2009
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

This is an appeal from a decision of Special Magistrate Cush of 11 February 2009. His Honour, on the application of the appellant employer, determined that this Territory is the appropriate State or Territory in respect of a claim made by the respondent worker for compensation arising out of an injury allegedly suffered by the worker between May 2007 and 28 March 2008. The nature of the injury was “mental injury” sustained as a result of “harassing, bullying and intimidating behaviour of supervisor”. The application for arbitration was made by the worker on 20 August 2008. The answer of the employer, dated 6 November 2008, raised an issue as to whether the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) was the relevant State of connection pursuant to s 36A to 36D of the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) (the Act). The employer contended that “Pursuant to Section 36B(3)(b) and (c); being that the applicant’s base for employment is Jerrabomberra New South Wales (NSW), her direct manager’s base for employment is Bargo NSW and Avon’s registered office is in Sydney NSW” hence that the “State of connection” was NSW. The Territory or State of connection is deemed to be the appropriate jurisdiction to determine a compensation claim.

The legislative background, as his Honour noted, relevantly began with amendments proposed by the Workers Compensation Amendment Bill 2003 (No 2).Those amendments were intended to provide greater certainty for employers operating across State and…

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 Avon Products Pty Ltd v Falls 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: [2009] ACTSC 141
Decision Date: 19 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Avon Products Pty Ltd v Falls involved an appeal from the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appeal was directed at a determination regarding the state or territory of connection under the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT). The core issue was identifying the appropriate state for the workers' compensation claim, which depended on determining the "State or Territory of connection" and the "relevant place" of employment. This hinged on whether the worker was customarily or routinely required to work in more than one state or territory and the location where the injury occurred. The injury in question happened outside the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), but the worker was only required to perform duties within the ACT.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) to determine the "State or Territory of connection" and the "relevant place" of employment. The court had to consider the statutory definitions and the practical circumstances of the worker's employment, particularly whether the worker was required to work in multiple states or territories and where the injury occurred. The court was tasked with resolving whether the injury occurring outside the ACT but the worker’s duties being confined to the ACT meant the ACT was the appropriate state for the compensation claim.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Magistrates Court had correctly determined the state of connection. It held that since the worker was only required to perform duties in the ACT, the ACT was the appropriate state for the workers' compensation claim. The court reasoned that despite the injury occurring outside the ACT, the worker’s base and usual place of employment were within the ACT, making it the "State or Territory of connection." Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.