Longyear Australia Pty Ltd v Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation No. SCGRG 94/1494 Judgment No. 4951 Number of Pages 6 Workers' Compensation

The case before the Supreme Court of South Australia concerns a dispute between Longyear Australia Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation (the defendant). The plaintiff sought judicial review of the defendant's decision to impose a supplementary levy under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The issue at hand was whether the defendant's decision was legally sound, specifically whether the plaintiff had failed to provide suitable employment to a disabled worker, as required by section 58B of the Act.

The court considered several legal issues, including whether the obligation to provide suitable employment to a disabled worker survives the lawful termination of employment, the onus of proof concerning the reasonable practicability of providing suitable employment, and whether the employer was required to create a position if no suitable vacancy was available. The plaintiff argued that the Board's decision was flawed due to errors of law appearing on the face of the record. However, the court found no such errors.

The court reasoned that the obligation to provide suitable employment under section 58B does not cease upon the lawful termination of employment. The failure to provide suitable employment, which occurred before the termination, empowered the Board to impose the supplementary levy. Regarding the onus of proof, the court held that the Board was correct in expecting the plaintiff to establish that it was not reasonably practicable to provide suitable employment. The court also determined that while casual employment may not be suitable for a disabled permanent employee, if it were not reasonably practicable to provide permanent employment but was reasonably practicable to provide casual employment, the employer's obligation would not be fulfilled unless the casual employment were provided. The court further found that the Board's decision did not constitute an error of law, as it was within the Board's discretion to determine what was reasonably practicable in the circumstances.

In conclusion, the court found no errors of law in the Board's decision and dismissed the plaintiff's action for judicial review. The defendant's decision to impose the supplementary levy was upheld.