Martin v Employers Mutual Ltd

The case of *Martin v Employers Mutual Ltd* concerned a question of law referred to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia by the Workers Compensation Tribunal. The dispute centred on whether the worker or the compensating authority bore the onus of proof in determining if a worker had no current work capacity under section 35B(1) of the *Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986* (SA).

The legal issue before the Court was to determine which party carried the burden of proof when a dispute arose regarding a worker's current work capacity, specifically in the context of the cessation of weekly payments after the third entitlement period. The Tribunal had reformulated the question referred by the Full Bench to clarify the precise legal point in dispute.

The Court reasoned that while certain personal factors of a worker might suggest an evidential onus on the worker, the compensating authority would typically possess significant material relevant to work capacity after extensive income maintenance, medical assessments, and rehabilitation efforts. The Court found no inherent reason to shift the legal burden of proof from the compensating authority, particularly given the usual position in disputed discontinuances or reductions of weekly payments where the authority bears the onus. The Court also considered the structure of sections 35-35C of the Act, concluding they define circumstances for both cessation and continuation of entitlements, rather than creating a wholly new entitlement process.

Ultimately, the Court held that Employers Mutual Ltd, having asserted a change in the worker's incapacity leading to the cessation of income maintenance, bore the burden of proof. Therefore, the Court answered the reformulated question by stating that it was Employers Mutual Ltd's responsibility to prove that Mr Martin had no current work capacity.