Perret v Tasmania - [2023] TASSC 25

[2023] TASSC 25

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Perret v Tasmania [2023] TASSC 25
PARTIES:	PERRET, Michael James
v
STATE OF TASMANIA (Department of State Growth)
FILE NO:	876/2023
DELIVERED ON:	24 July 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	20 June 2023
JUDGMENT OF:	Marshall AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Administrative law – Judicial review – Grounds of review – Error of law – Statutory interpretation – Whether personal service required for workers compensation claim – Where service of claim effected by email – Whether claim is deemed to have been served when email is received – Personal service not required – Claim deemed to have been served at the time of receipt by email – Tribunal without jurisdiction to hear s 81A referral – Appeal allowed.

Electronic Transactions Act 2000.
Electronic Transactions Regulations 2021.

Aust Dig Administrative Law [1030]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: M E O'Farrell SC, K Allen
Respondent: O Robinson

Solicitors:

Appellant: Abetz Curtis Lawyers
Respondent: Office of the Solicitor-General

Judgment Number:	[2023] TASSC 25
Number of paragraphs:	19

Serial No 25/2023 File No 876/2023

MICHAEL JAMES PERRET v STATE OF TASMANIA

(DEPARTMENT OF STATE GROWTH)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MARSHALL AJ
24 July 2023

1 This appeal from the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal") raises a short point of statutory construction concerning s 35 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act") and reg 5 of the Electronic Transactions Regulations 2021 ("the ETRs") made pursuant to the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 ("the ETA").

Background facts

2 In November 2022, the appellant informed a representative of the respondent by email that he would be lodging a workers compensation claim. The representative informed the appellant by email that he could complete the necessary form (which she attached in her email to him) and send it back to her; meaning by email.
3 At about 6pm on 10 November 2022, the appellant sent the representative of his employer his claim for workers compensation, as she had requested, by email. Later on in the evening of 10 November 2022 he placed a hard copy of the form on the desk of the representative of his employer. The representative had left the office for the day and did not become aware of the email sent by the appellant at 6.04pm on 10 November 2022 until 8.04am on 11 November 2022 when she logged on to her computer at work. She also located the hard copy of the form left by the appellant on her desk later on 11 November 2022.

Statutory contract

4 Section 35(1) of the Act provides, so far as is material, that:

"(1) A claim for compensation may be given –

(a) to the employer of a worker or, if there is more than one employer, to one of the employers of a worker by –

(i) delivering it personally to the employer or one of the employers; or
(ii) by placing it in a properly…

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.

Continue reading Perret v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Perret v Tasmania [2023] TASSC 25
Case: [2023] TASSC 25
Decision Date: 24 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Perret v Tasmania, the dispute centred on the proper method of service of a workers compensation claim and the subsequent jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear a referral under section 81A. The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to review the decisions of the Workers Compensation Registrar and the Full Court of the Tasmanian Workers Compensation Magistrate’s Court. The central legal issue was whether personal service of a claim was required under the applicable legislation, or if service by email was sufficient, and consequently, whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the referral.

The court examined the statutory language and legislative context to determine the appropriate method of service. It held that the claim was deemed to have been served upon receipt by email, and thus personal service was not mandated. The court found that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the referral under section 81A as the claim was validly served by email. The Full Court also noted that the tribunal’s earlier decision to proceed with the referral despite the improper service was an error of law.

In light of the above findings, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the decision of the Full Court of the Tasmanian Workers Compensation Magistrate’s Court. The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia directed that the matter be remitted to the tribunal with instructions to dismiss the referral for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders