Integratedliving Australia Ltd v Hodgetts - [2017] TASSC 78

[2017] TASSC 78

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Integratedliving Australia Ltd v Hodgetts [2017] TASSC 78

PARTIES:  INTEGRATEDLIVING AUSTRALIA LTD
  v
  HODGETTS, Danielle

FILE NO: 2299/2017
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: Integratedliving Australia Ltd v H [2017] TASWRCT 24

DELIVERED ON:  21 December 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  4 December 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Geason J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers' Compensation – Determination of claims – Jurisdiction of courts, tribunals, commissions and boards – Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal (Tas) – Benefits payable – Medical certificate after gap in certification – Right of employer to treat certificate as claim for compensation – Whether employer may dispute continuing liability to pay benefits.

Aust Dig Workers' Compensation [305]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  I Hallett
             Respondent:  No appearance
             Attorney-General:  D Osz
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Page Seager
             Attorney-General:  Solicitor-General

Judgment Number: [2017] TASSC 78
Number of paragraphs: 31

Serial No 78/2017
File No 2299/2017

INTEGRATEDLIVING AUSTRALIA LTD v DANIELLE HODGETTS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GEASON J

21 December 2017

The appellant urges four grounds of appeal upon the Court by way of challenge to a decision of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal (the Tribunal) constituted by Commissioner Wilkins: Integratedliving Australia Ltd v H [2017] TASWRCT 24.
By its notice of appeal it submits that in respect of the reference numbered W/2017/467, a reasonably arguable case existed concerning the respondent's claim for compensation in accordance with s 69(13) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act). It contends that not only is it not liable to pay compensation by way of weekly payments to the respondent, in accordance with s 81A(3)(c) of the Act, but that it was also entitled to an order to the effect that it was not liable to pay the cost of any benefits payable under Div 2 of Pt VI of the Act in respect of the injury, in accordance with s 81A(3)(d). The learned commissioner concluded that she did not have jurisdiction to make an order under s 81A(3)(d) in respect of the referral, and that instead, s 77AA provides the mechanism whereby an employer who contests liability to pay claims for expenses under Pt 2 of Div VI of the Act may do so. Accordingly, she refused to make orders in accordance with a consent memorandum which had been filed by the parties.
The respondent did not participate in the appeal. The Attorney-General appeared as amicus curiae and made submissions in favour of the construction of the Act adopted by the learned commissioner.
The four grounds of appeal advanced are:
"1The Tribunal erred in law in that it failed to make a determination and order in accordance with s81A(3)(d) of the Act [27] when it was required to do so pursuant to the Reference.
2The Tribunal erred in law in that it determined that the Appellant could only use s77AA of the Act to dispute the Respondent's entitlement to an expense under Division 2 of Part VI of the Act [26-27] notwithstanding that…

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 Integratedliving Australia Ltd v Hodgetts 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: [2017] TASSC 78
Decision Date: 21 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Integratedliving Australia Ltd contested a claim by Mr Hodgetts for ongoing workers' compensation benefits. The dispute involved whether the employer could dispute liability to pay benefits after a period during which Mr Hodgetts did not provide a medical certificate. The Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal (Tas) was tasked with resolving this issue.

The central legal issue before the tribunal was whether Integratedliving Australia Ltd could dispute its liability to pay ongoing benefits after Mr Hodgetts had not provided a medical certificate for a period. The tribunal considered whether the employer's right to treat the certificate as a claim for compensation was affected by this gap in certification. The focus was on whether the employer could challenge the continuing liability to pay benefits based on this gap.

In its decision, the tribunal found that the employer's right to treat the certificate as a claim for compensation was not impeded by the gap in certification. The tribunal held that the employer could dispute the liability to pay ongoing benefits, even if Mr Hodgetts had not provided a medical certificate for a time. This decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant legislation and the tribunal's understanding of the employer's rights in this context.

The tribunal's final orders were that Integratedliving Australia Ltd could dispute its liability to pay ongoing benefits to Mr Hodgetts, notwithstanding the gap in medical certification. The tribunal emphasised the importance of the employer's right to challenge ongoing compensation claims in the context of workers' rehabilitation and compensation.

Orders