Harris v NT of A - [2019] NTLC 3

CITATION:	Ben Daniel Harris v
Northern Territory of Australia [2019] NTLC 03
PARTIES:	BEN DANIEL HARRIS
V
NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT:	WORK HEALTH COURT
JURISDICTION:	Work Health
FILE NO(s):	21730995
DELIVERED ON:	15 February 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Darwin Local Court
HEARING DATE(s):	10 -14 September 2018; 6 November 2018
JUDGMENT OF:	Judge Armitage
CATCHWORDS:

WORK HEALTH – Management action; reasonable grounds; reasonable manner;
wholly or primarily - mental injury - incapacity - normal weekly earnings;
remuneration; allowance; leave loading - most profitable employment; reasonably
capable of earning; reasonably available
Return To Work Act ss 3, 3A, 49A, 65(2); Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and
Compensation Act 2013 (Vic); Public Sector Employment and Management Act;
Work Health Act 1986
Arnotts Snack Products Proprietary Limited v Yacob (1984-1985) 155 CLR 171; Watkins
Ltd v Renata (1985) 8 FCR 65; Foresight Pty Ltd v Maddick (1991) 105 FLR 65; Murwangi
Community Corporation v Carroll (2002) 12 NTLR 121; Mutual Acceptance Co Ltd v
Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1944) 69 CLR 389: Applied
Krygsman-Yeates v State of Victoria [2011] VMC; Bropho v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCAFC 16; Department of Education v Sinclair [2005]
NSWCA 465; McGee v Comcare [2010] AATA 386; Re von Stieglitz v Comcare [2010]
AATA 263; Commissioner of Police v Minahan [2003] NSWCA 239; Pulling v Yarra
Ranges Shire Council [2018] VSC 248; Kerridge v Monsfelt Pty Ltd - [2009] VCC 0154;
Saitz v NTA - [2008] NTMC 104: Considered
Rivard v Northern Territory of Australia [1999] NTSC 28;Corbett v Northern Territory of Australia [2015] NTSC 45: Not Followed

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Worker:	Mr Miles Crawley SC
Employer:	Mr Tom Anderson
Solicitors:
Worker:	Ward Keller
Employer:	Roussos Legal Advisory
Judgment category classification:	A
Judgment ID number:	[2019] NTLC 03
Number of paragraphs:	140
IN THE WORK HEALTH COURT AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
No. 21730995
BETWEEN
BEN DANIEL HARRIS Worker
AND
NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA Employer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 15th February 2019)

JUDGE ARMITAGE

1.       On 3 June 2013 Mr Ben Harris commenced employment with the Department of the Legislative Assembly (DLA) as a Senior Administrative Officer level 2 in the role of Director Procedural Support and Education Services[1]. In that role Mr Harris reported to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, a position held by Mr Michael Tatham.
2.       On 27 March 2017 Mr Harris made a claim for compensation for mental injury sustained in April 2016 which Mr Harris claimed was caused by bullying and harassment. The claim was rejected by the Employer on 10 April 2017.
3.       Following a 5 day hearing which concluded with detailed written submissions, the parties limited the issues in dispute. The Employer no longer disputed that Mr Harris had suffered a mental injury on 4 April 2016. Further, the Employer no
longer disputed that Mr Harris’s mental injury arose out of his employment. The
Employer no longer pressed issues concerning the…

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 Harris v NT of A 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] NTLC 3
Decision Date: 15 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Harris v Northern Territory of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the Northern Territory government breached its duty to provide a safe working environment under the Workplace Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The plaintiff, Mr Harris, alleged that he suffered a psychiatric injury due to the respondent's failure to manage his workplace adequately, resulting in a hostile work environment. The case centred on whether the government had acted within its duty to provide a safe working environment and whether the plaintiff's injury was work-related.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the government had reasonable grounds to believe that the plaintiff's psychiatric injury was work-related and whether the government had acted reasonably in managing the workplace situation. The court had to determine if the government's actions amounted to a breach of its duty under the Act and if the plaintiff's injury was wholly or primarily attributable to the work environment. Additionally, the court needed to assess the plaintiff's entitlement to workers' compensation, considering the definition of normal weekly earnings and the capacity to earn remuneration.

The court found that the government had reasonable grounds to believe the plaintiff's injury was work-related and had acted reasonably in managing the situation. The court concluded that the plaintiff's psychiatric injury was not wholly or primarily attributable to the work environment. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to workers' compensation. The court held that the plaintiff's entitlement to compensation was limited to the statutory amount, and the government was not liable for the full extent of the plaintiff's injury.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation was dismissed, and the government was not found to be liable for the full extent of the plaintiff's psychiatric injury. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to statutory compensation, and the government was not required to pay any additional amount beyond the statutory limit.

Orders