Morrison v State of Tasmania - [2025] TASSC 5

[2025] TASSC 5

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Morrison v State of Tasmania [2025] TASSC 5
PARTIES:	MORRISON, Jason
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	2726/2024
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	State of Tasmania (Department for Education, Children and Young People) v KNN [2023] TASCAT 162
DELIVERED ON:	18 February 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	7 February 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Marshall AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Workers' Compensation – Proceedings to Obtain Compensation – Determination of Claims – Appeals, Judicial Review and Stated Cases – Question of Law – Particular Cases – Whether tribunal erred in applying s25(1A) of Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 (Tas) in decision to cease compensation payments to appellant – Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider whether action of employer was reasonable or taken in a reasonable manner – no arguable case that worker's injury was caused by reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable way – Appeal allowed.

Aust Dig Workers Compensation [341]

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 (Tas) s 25(1A), 81A

Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 (Tas) ss 136(1), 138

Cases cited:
Burrage v Rural Press Limited [2013] TASSC 43
St Helens Oysters v Coatsworth [2007] TASSC 90
Vos Construction and Joinery Pty Ltd v Norton-Smith [2016] TASSC 38

Work Cove Corporation of South Australia v Summers (1995) 65 SASR 233

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: B Hilliard
Respondent: L Taylor

Solicitors:

Appellant: Hall Payne Lawyers
Respondent: Office of the State Litigator

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 5
Number of paragraphs:	58

Serial No 5/2024

File No 2726/2024

JASON MORRISON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MARSHALL AJ 18 February 2025

1 The appellant has appealed from a decision of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). In that decision, it was ordered that the appellant's weekly payments of compensation under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 ("the Act") not be paid to him by the respondent.

Factual background

2 The appellant is an employee of the respondent within its Department of Education, Children and Young People. He is a secondary school teacher who was last engaged in the Futures Programme at Rosny College. That programme is located on the other side of Kangaroo Bay from the main Rosny College campus, at what is called "the Annex", along Cambridge Road. It is described in promotional material used by the college on-line as:
"a personalised learning programme aimed at enhancing educational outcomes and
engagement of students through a variety of curriculum choices…".

3            It appears to be designed to assist students who would not fit within the usual programmes for secondary students at Rosny College.
4             The appellant commenced to work full-time in the Futures Programme in 2022 and was so engaged until 4 April 2024, the date on which he sustained the injury which is the subject of this proceeding.
5            In the Futures Programme, he held the role of "Classroom leader". In that capacity, he had a role in supporting other teachers…

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 Morrison v State of Tasmania 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: [2025] TASSC 5
Decision Date: 18 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Morrison sought compensation from the State of Tasmania under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998. The dispute centred on the decision of the tribunal to cease compensation payments to Morrison. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, where Morrison appealed the tribunal's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the tribunal erred in applying section 25(1A) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 in deciding to cease compensation payments to Morrison. Specifically, the court had to determine if the tribunal failed to consider whether the employer's actions were reasonable or taken in a reasonable manner. The court needed to assess if Morrison could establish an arguable case that his injury was caused by reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable way.

The court found that the tribunal had indeed erred in law by not considering whether the employer's actions were reasonable or taken in a reasonable manner. The court held that there was no arguable case that Morrison's injury was caused by reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable way. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the tribunal was set aside.

The court's final order was that Morrison's appeal against the tribunal's decision be allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the tribunal for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

Orders