Headway Support Services v Wickham - [2009] TASSC 99

[2009] TASSC 99

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Headway Support Services v Wickham [2009] TASSC 99

PARTIES:  HEADWAY SUPPORT SERVICES
  v
  WICKHAM, Caroline Sandra

JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: Wickham v Headway Support Services [2009] TASWRCT 14

FILE NO/S:  694/2009
DELIVERED ON:                   29 October 2009
DELIVERED AT:                   Hobart
HEARING DATE:                   24 August 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow J

CATCHWORDS:

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

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Tas), s81A(3).
St Helens Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth (2007) 17 Tas R 43, followed.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [307]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  K E Read
           Respondent:  C M Schokman
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Dobson Mitchell & Allport
           Respondent:  Ogilvie Jennings

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 99
Number of paragraphs: 17

Serial No 99/2009
File No 694/2009

HEADWAY SUPPORT SERVICES v CAROLINE SANDRA WICKHAM

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW J

29 October 2009

This appeal concerns a dispute between a worker, Caroline Wickham, and her employer, Headway Support Services, as to whether the worker is entitled to weekly payments of workers compensation and the payment of medical expenses and other benefits.

On 21 May 2009, in the course of her employment, the worker had a conversation with two senior staff members. She was very unhappy with their attitudes towards her. She took the rest of the day off, saw a doctor, obtained a medical certificate, and claimed compensation under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act") on the basis that she was incapacitated for work as the result of an acute stress reaction. The employer decided to dispute liability for the payment of compensation. It referred the matter to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal ("the Tribunal") under the Act, s81A. There was a hearing before the Tribunal. The employer contended that the worker's medical condition did not arise out of or in the course of her employment. It also contended that her medical condition arose substantially from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner by it in connection with her employment, and that compensation was therefore not payable because of the provisions of s25A(1)(c). The learned commissioner held that the employer did not have a reasonably arguable case, and ordered the payment of compensation pursuant to s81A(3)(a) and (b). The employer contends that it did have a reasonably arguable case, and that the learned commissioner erred in law in holding that it did not.

In summary, the relevant provisions of the Act provide as follows:

· If, in any employment, a worker suffers a "disease" arising out of and in the course of that employment, and to which the employment "contributed to a substantial degree", the employer is liable to pay compensation, subject to certain exceptions: s25(1)(b). The employment "contributed to a substantial degree" only if the employment is the major or most significant factor: s3(2A).
· Compensation is not payable in respect of an illness of the mind or a disorder of 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.

Continue reading Headway Support Services v Wickham

Details

AGLC: Headway Support Services v Wickham [2009] TASSC 99
Case: [2009] TASSC 99
Decision Date: 29 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Headway Support Services v Wickham was heard before the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The dispute involved a claim for workers' compensation by Mr Wickham, who alleged that he suffered a psychological injury as a result of his employment with Headway Support Services. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether a reasonably arguable case existed for Mr Wickham's claim to proceed to a formal hearing.

The Tribunal needed to determine if Mr Wickham's evidence was sufficient to establish a reasonably arguable case, as required by the relevant legislation. This involved assessing the credibility and sufficiency of Mr Wickham's claims and the evidence provided in support of those claims. The Tribunal had to weigh the evidence and decide if it was plausible enough to warrant a full hearing.

The Tribunal concluded that Mr Wickham's evidence was not sufficient to establish a reasonably arguable case. The evidence provided did not meet the threshold required for the case to proceed to a formal hearing. The Tribunal found that the claims were not supported by sufficient credible evidence, and as such, the claim did not meet the criteria for a reasonably arguable case. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed Mr Wickham's application to proceed with his workers' compensation claim.

Orders