Bradshaw v Tasmania Networks Pty Ltd - [2019] TASSC 41

[2019] TASSC 41

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Bradshaw v Tasmania Networks Pty Ltd [2019] TASSC 41

PARTIES:  BRADSHAW, Kim
  v
  TASMANIA NETWORKS PTY LTD

FILE NO:  2347/2018
DELIVERED ON:  25 September 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Burnie
HEARING DATE:  30 April 2019
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation – Liability to pay compensation – Liability of employer – Other cases – Reasonably arguable case – Liability to pay compensation – Dependent on the existence of requisite causal relationship between employment and injury.

State of Tasmania v Parson [2002] TASSC 59, 11 Tas R 56; St Helens Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth [2007] TASSC 90, 17 Tas R 43; Vos Construction & Joinery Pty Ltd v Norton Smith [2016] TASSC 38, applied.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [220]

Workers Compensation – Entitlement to compensation – Injury, disease or disability – Disease – Aggravation or acceleration of pre-existing disease or condition – General principles – Causation – Employment major or most significant contributing factor to aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of pre-existing disease.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), ss 81A, 63, 25.
Long v Kmart Australia Ltd [2016] TASSC 6, 25 Tas R 237, applied.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [9]

Workers Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Preliminary requirements – Interim payments – Reasonably arguable case for employer established – Tribunal erred.

Aust Dig Workers Compensation [303]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  W Ayliffe SC
             Respondent:  M Wilkins
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Blissenden Lawyers
             Respondent:  Page Seager

Judgment Number: [2019] TASSC 41
Number of paragraphs: 64

Serial No 41/2019
File No 2347/2018

KIM BRADSHAW v TASMANIA NETWORKS PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

25 September 2019

On 21 May 2018, the appellant made a claim for workers compensation in respect of an injury which was asserted to have occurred on 4 May 2018. The appellant was employed by the respondent as a stores person in a warehouse, and had been in that employment for many years. The claim asserted that after driving a "battery reach fork", as he walked away, he felt severe pain in his lower right back and pain through his right hip. The claim form was accompanied by medical certificates which certified incapacity for work from 7 May 2018.
The respondent arranged for the appellant to be examined by a neurosurgeon, Mr Dohrmann. On 24 July 2018, pursuant to s 81A of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act), the respondent served a notice on the appellant disputing liability to pay compensation and referred the matter to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal (the Tribunal). The asserted basis of dispute was that it was reasonably arguable that the worker had not suffered an injury which gave rise to liability on the part of the employer to pay compensation pursuant to the Act. On 7 August 2018, the Tribunal, constituted by Commissioner Wilkins, conducted a hearing and determined that a reasonably arguable case existed concerning that…

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 Bradshaw v Tasmania Networks Pty Ltd 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: [2019] TASSC 41
Decision Date: 25 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Bradshaw v Tasmania Networks Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the liability of the employer to pay compensation to the plaintiff, who had suffered an injury. The plaintiff claimed that the injury occurred during the course of his employment with the defendant company. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The central legal issues were whether the plaintiff's injury was caused by his employment and whether the employer had a legal obligation to compensate him.

The court examined whether the plaintiff had established a reasonably arguable case that the injury was work-related and that the employer was liable to pay compensation. The court needed to determine if there was a causal relationship between the plaintiff's employment and the injury. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and assessed whether the plaintiff had demonstrated that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The court also evaluated whether the injury was of a kind that could reasonably be foreseen as a result of the employment.

The court found that the plaintiff had established a reasonably arguable case that his injury was caused by his employment. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support a causal link between the plaintiff's employment and the injury. Consequently, the court ruled that the employer was liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff. The court concluded that the plaintiff had demonstrated that the injury was of a kind that could reasonably be foreseen as a result of his employment.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant company was liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff for the injury sustained during the course of his employment. The court determined that the plaintiff had met the necessary legal criteria to establish the employer's liability for compensation.

Orders