Forestry Tasmania v Peterson - [2000] TASSC 67

[2000] TASSC 67

CITATION: Forestry Tasmania v Peterson [2000] TASSC 67

PARTIES:  FORESTRY TASMANIA
  v
  PETERSON, Michael John

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 130/1999
DELIVERED ON:  16 June 2000
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  19 May 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation - Proceedings to obtain compensation - Determination of claims - Jurisdiction and powers of tribunals, boards, commissioners, etc - Tasmania - Dispute procedure enacted by s81A - Form of notice of dispute - Whether documents can be read together to constitute notice.
Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), s81A.

Jones v Jones (1996) 6 Tas R 273; Chorley v Hazell Ltd 17/1993; Gardner v Hansen & Yuncken Pty Ltd, 63/1996; Griffiths v Devonport Youth Accommodation Services Inc A39/1996; Thornton v Terry Cox 60/1994; Hawkins v Mercury Walch Pty Ltd 22/1996, referred to.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [143].

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  J R McDonald
             Respondent:  D J Barclay
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Forestry Tasmania
             Respondent:  Temple Smith Barclay

Judgment Number: [2000] TASSC 67
Number of Paragraphs: 12

Serial No 67/2000
File No LCA130/1999

FORESTRY TASMANIA
v
MICHAEL JOHN PETERSON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SLICER J

16 June 2000

The respondent gave notice of an injury, said to have occurred on 4 November, to an employer on 23 November 1998. A claim for compensation was made on 29 April 1999 pursuant to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act") which described the occurrence as: "developed severe sciatica as a result of herniation/rupture of S1/L5 spinal disc in the course of "travelling from Hobart to Devonport". The medical certificate stated the circumstances to be a "prolonged journey in 4WD vehicle on 4 November 1998 to Geeveston". The diagnosis made was "prolapsed disc at L5 S1 (word indecipherable) 9/12/98 at Calvary Hospital". The cause of the condition was stated to be "a disease, symptoms of which became evident on 16 November 1998."

The claim was complex and confusing. The occurrence was stated by the respondent to have occurred whilst travelling from Hobart to Devonport, whilst the medical certificate referred to Geeveston. The respondent stated that symptoms were said to have become evident on 4 November whilst the medical certificate referred to 16 November. The condition was said to have been caused by "disease", rather than "accident". Those matters required investigation and careful consideration.

The employer wrote to the respondent on 7 May 1999 in the following terms:

"RE: Workers Compensation Claim
I have received your workers compensation claim dated 29 April 1999, and workers compensation medical certificate dated 28 April 1999.
Unfortunately, there is some uncertainty regarding the claim at present. The Act states that a claim must be determined within 14 days of receipt of the claim. This places time constraints upon Forestry Tasmania to make a fully informed decision. If we cannot obtain the medical information we require to make a decision within 14 days the only avenue we have to obtain extra time is to lodge a dispute…

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 Forestry Tasmania v Peterson

Details

AGLC: Forestry Tasmania v Peterson [2000] TASSC 67
Case: [2000] TASSC 67
Decision Date: 16 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Forestry Tasmania appealed against a decision of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal regarding a dispute over a workers compensation claim made by Michael John Peterson. The claim was complex and confusing, with discrepancies in the reported location and date of the incident and the medical evidence provided. Forestry Tasmania sought more information and time to make a decision, but the Tribunal found that the employer had not properly served a notice of dispute as required by the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

The court considered whether the employer's letter to the employee, which referred to the attached referral notice, complied with the statutory requirement to provide written notice of the dispute and reasons for disputing liability. The Commissioner had found that the letter alone did not provide the required information. However, the court found that the letter and the referral notice should be read together, as the letter referred to the referral notice and both documents were provided at the same time. The court concluded that the documents, when read together, provided the required information and the employer had properly served notice of the dispute.

The court quashed the order of the Commissioner and remitted the referral to the Tribunal for determination in accordance with law. The court found that the employer's process for disputing liability was in accordance with the Act and that the employer had properly served notice of the dispute and reasons for disputing liability. The appeal was successful, and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for further consideration.

Orders