Lamont v MRD Supermarkets Pty Ltd - [2016] TASSC 16

[2016] TASSC 16

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Lamont v MRD Supermarkets Pty Ltd [2016] TASSC 16

PARTIES:  LAMONT, Tara
  v
  MRD SUPERMARKETS PTY LTD

FILE NO: 2041/2015
DECISION

APPEALED FROM: MRD Supermarkets Pty Ltd t/as Triabunna IGA Everyday
v L (Ref No 868/2015) [2015] TASWRCT 34

DELIVERED ON:  23 March 2016
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  18 March 2016
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Workers' Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Preliminary requirements – Interim payments – Whether reasonably arguable case for employer exists – Sufficiency of evidence.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), s 81A.
St Helens Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth [2007] TASSC 90, 17 Tas R 43, referred to.
Aust Dig Workers' Compensation [303]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  S Taglieri
           Respondent:  K E Read SC
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  F McIntyre
           Respondent:  Dobson Mitchell & Allport

Judgment Number: [2016] TASSC 16
Number of paragraphs: 18

Serial No 16/2016
File No 2041/2015

TARA LAMONT v MRD SUPERMARKETS PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

23 March 2016

This is an appeal from a decision of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal, constituted by Commissioner Chandler: MRD Supermarkets Pty Ltd t/as Triabunna IGA Everyday v L (Ref No 868/2015) [2015] TASWRCT 34. It concerns a referral pursuant to s 81A of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"). That section concerns interim payments. The learned commissioner decided that the employer had a reasonably arguable case, and made orders excusing the employer from making weekly payments of compensation, and from paying medical expenses and so forth. The worker has appealed, contending that the learned commissioner erred in law in making those orders, and that she should be receiving the payments in question.
In July of last year the worker submitted a claim for workers compensation in respect of a psychological condition that was said to have arisen as the result of an incident on 21 July at about 1.30pm at her workplace, which was a supermarket operated by the respondent at Triabunna. The claim form required her to give details of what happened. She wrote, "verbally attacked, bullied, threatened indirectly sworn at". In completing the form she said that she had a supervisor named Gemma Lamont, and that that person was a witness to the occurrence. No other witnesses were named. She said that the incident occurred in a storeroom.
The claim form was accompanied by a medical certificate in which a general practitioner said that the worker was seen on 23 July and 27 July. The doctor described the worker's presenting symptoms as "tearful, anxious, emotional". The doctor gave this description of the incident:
"Appointed I/C by owner while he was away. Had a problem with a staff member who used abusive language and episode of bullying consistent with the stated cause."
When an employer receives a claim for compensation, s 81(1) of the Act requires the employer to commence making weekly payments of compensation to 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 Lamont v MRD Supermarkets Pty Ltd 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: [2016] TASSC 16
Decision Date: 23 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lamont, the appellant, sought compensation from MRD Supermarkets Pty Ltd, the respondent, for an injury sustained during employment. The primary dispute centred on the preliminary requirements for obtaining workers' compensation, specifically regarding the employer's entitlement to interim payments and the existence of a reasonably arguable case. The matter was heard and determined in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolved around whether MRD Supermarkets had a reasonably arguable case against Lamont's entitlement to compensation and whether Lamont had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim. Additionally, the court had to consider the standard of proof required to establish the existence of such a case, particularly in the context of interim payments. The respondent argued that the evidence presented by Lamont was insufficient to meet the threshold of a reasonably arguable case, thereby warranting the cessation of interim payments.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence and legal precedents. It found that the respondent had not met the required standard of proof to establish a reasonably arguable case against Lamont's claim. The court emphasised the importance of the employer providing clear and convincing evidence to substantiate their position. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision that Lamont had provided sufficient evidence to warrant continued interim payments. The court's ruling underscored the necessity for employers to adhere to stringent evidentiary standards when contesting workers' compensation claims.

Orders