Burrage v Rural Press Limited - [2013] TASSC 43

[2013] TASSC 43

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Burrage v Rural Press Limited [2013] TASSC 43

PARTIES: BURRAGE, Megan
v

RURAL PRESS LIMITED trading as THE EXAMINER NEWSPAPER

FILE NO/S:  1104/2012
DELIVERED ON:  16 August 2013
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  23 May 2013
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers' Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Determination of claims – Procedure – Procedure before hearing – Whether "reasonably arguable case exists".

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 (Tas), ss 25(1)(b), 25(1A)(c), 42, 81A.
Workcover Corporation of South Australia v Summers (1995) 65 SASR 243; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve [2012] FCAFC 21, considered.
St Helens Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth (2007) 17 Tas R 43, followed.

Aust Dig Workers' Compensation [307]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  C N Dockray
             Respondent:  M Livesey QC
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  C N Dockray
             Respondent:  M+K Dobson Mitchell Allport

Judgment Number: [2013] TASSC 43
Number of paragraphs: 48

Serial No 43/2013
File No 1104/2012

MEGAN BURRAGE v RURAL PRESS LIMITED
trading as THE EXAMINER NEWSPAPER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

16 August 2013

This is an appeal by Megan Burrage from a determination of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal that a reasonably arguable case existed concerning the liability of her employer to pay her compensation by way of weekly payments and the cost of benefits under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"). Ms Burrage, the worker, suffered an anxiety condition. The employer disputed its liability on the basis that the case fell within s25(1A)(c), an exclusionary provision applying in respect of a disease which is an illness of the mind or disorder of the mind, such as the anxiety condition in this case, which arises substantially from an employer's "administrative action". The learned Commissioner, Mr R Chandler, held that was reasonably arguable. It was submitted on appeal that a reasonably arguable case did not exist, that the conclusion reached was not reasonably open, and the learned Commissioner had made an error in point of law.

Section 81A proceedings

The issue arose in proceedings pursuant to the Act, s81A, which provides a mechanism for an employer to dispute liability to pay compensation. Generally, an employer has an obligation to commence making weekly payments of compensation to a worker following receipt of a claim for compensation, s81. An employer who disputes liability to pay compensation must, within 84 days of receiving a claim for compensation, serve the worker with a written notice that it disputes liability, inform the worker of the reasons for disputing liability, and refer the matter to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal, s81A(1). The referral must be accompanied by all evidentiary material on which the employer intends to rely at the hearing of the matter, s81A(2). If a referral occurs, as it did in this case, the tribunal must determine whether it considers that a reasonably arguable case exists as to the payment of compensation, s81A(2A). If the tribunal considers that the employer has a reasonably arguable…

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.

Continue reading Burrage v Rural Press Limited

Details

AGLC: Burrage v Rural Press Limited [2013] TASSC 43
Case: [2013] TASSC 43
Decision Date: 16 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Burrage v Rural Press Limited case involved a legal dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Burrage, and the defendant, Rural Press Limited, concerning workers' compensation. The plaintiff sought compensation for a workplace injury. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which is responsible for handling such matters. The primary focus of the dispute was on the procedural aspects of the workers' compensation claim, specifically whether a reasonably arguable case existed to warrant the progression of the claim to a formal hearing.

The court was required to decide on the procedural requirements for determining whether a workers' compensation claim has merit. This involved assessing whether the plaintiff's allegations and evidence presented a case that was sufficiently arguable to warrant a full hearing. The court needed to determine if there was a threshold that needed to be met before allowing the case to proceed, and what criteria should be used to make that determination.

The court examined the relevant legislation and case law to establish the necessary standard for a claim to be considered reasonably arguable. It concluded that the plaintiff's case did not meet the required threshold, as the evidence did not sufficiently support the claims made. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that only claims with a reasonable basis proceed to a formal hearing, to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the workers' compensation process. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for compensation.

The court's final order was that the plaintiff's application for workers' compensation was dismissed, as it did not meet the procedural requirement of presenting a reasonably arguable case. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that only claims with sufficient merit proceed to a formal hearing, thereby preserving the efficiency and effectiveness of the workers' compensation system.

Orders