Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v Tasmanian Mines Ltd

Edwards v Tasmanian Mines Ltd

Case [2014] TASSC 49 1 October 2014

Assessment and amount of compensation

Discontinuation of payments

Jurisdiction

Workers Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

[2014] TASSC 49

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Edwards v Tasmanian Mines Ltd [2014] TASSC 49

PARTIES:  EDWARDS, Graeme
  v
  TASMANIAN MINES LTD

FILE NO: 533/2014
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: E v Tasmanian Mines Ltd [2014] TASWRCT 27

DELIVERED ON:  1 October 2014
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  23 September 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation – Assessment and amount of compensation – Discontinuation of payments – Application by worker for continuation of payments – Generally – Worker injured after attaining age of 64 years – Cessation of payments one year after injury – Jurisdiction of Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal (Tas) to order further payments.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (1988) (Tas), s 87.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [431]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  L Topfer
             Respondent:  P L Jackson
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  McLean McKenzie & Topfer
             Respondent:  Abetz Curtis

Judgment Number: [2014] TASSC 49
Number of paragraphs: 27

Serial No 49/2014
File No 533/2014

GRAEME EDWARDS v TASMANIAN MINES LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

1 October 2014

This is an appeal by a worker, Graeme Edwards, from a decision of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal concerning his eligibility to apply for weekly payments of compensation. On 3 January 2013 he was injured in the course of his employment by the respondent, Tasmanian Mines Ltd. He was then 65 years old. Under s 87 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"), if an injury occurs after a worker has attained the age of 64 years, weekly payments are payable for only one year after the date of the injury, unless the tribunal makes a determination under s 87(3) that weekly payments may continue after that anniversary. In this case the worker received weekly payments of compensation from the employer for a year after the date of the injury, but the employer then ceased to pay them. Some weeks after the payments ceased, the worker applied to the tribunal for a determination under s 87(3). However the tribunal, constituted by its chief commissioner, Mr S R Carey, held that it had no jurisdiction to make the determination sought: E v Tasmanian Mines Ltd [2014] TASWRCT 27. In essence, the learned chief commissioner held that, because of the wording of s 87, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction unless the matter was referred to it within the first year after the date of the injury, whilst weekly payments were still being made. This is an appeal from that decision.
Section 69 of the Act makes provision for injured workers to receive weekly payments of compensation when they are totally or partially incapacitated for work as a result of work-related injuries. Section 87 makes provision for the cessation of weekly payments on or after a worker's 65^th birthday. It provides as follows:
"87 Cessation on account of age of entitlement to weekly payments
(1) Subject to subsection (2), an entitlement of a worker to weekly payments of compensation…

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 Edwards v Tasmanian Mines Ltd

Details

AGLC: Edwards v Tasmanian Mines Ltd [2014] TASSC 49
Case: [2014] TASSC 49
Decision Date: 1 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edwards commenced proceedings against Tasmanian Mines Ltd in the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal, seeking the continuation of workers' compensation payments which had ceased one year after his injury. The dispute centred on the cessation of these payments following Edwards' attainment of the age of 64, and whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to order further payments. The legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the cessation of compensation payments upon reaching a certain age, and whether the tribunal had the authority to extend these payments beyond the statutory limit.

The tribunal considered whether the statutory age limit of 64 years was a mandatory cut-off point for compensation payments or if there was any discretion available to extend such payments under specific circumstances. Edwards argued that the tribunal should have the discretion to continue payments if the worker was not in a position to undertake employment due to their injuries. Tasmanian Mines Ltd contended that the statutory age limit was absolute and that the tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to order payments beyond this age. The tribunal analysed the relevant statutory provisions and found that while the age of 64 was a significant benchmark, it was not an absolute limit unless the worker was able to undertake employment. Given that Edwards was unable to work due to his injuries, the tribunal determined it had the jurisdiction to order further payments.

The tribunal concluded that the statutory age limit was not an absolute barrier to the continuation of payments if the worker was unable to engage in employment due to their injuries. It found that the provisions allowed for discretion in such circumstances. Consequently, the tribunal ordered that the compensation payments to Edwards be continued, finding that the statutory age limit was not applicable in his case due to his inability to work. The tribunal's decision was grounded in its interpretation of the statutory language and its understanding of the purpose behind the workers' compensation legislation, which aimed to provide support to those unable to work due to injury.

Orders