Pivot Limited v Crawford - [1999] TASSC 67

[1999] TASSC 67

CITATION: Pivot Limited against Crawford; Re [1999] TASSC 67

PARTIES: PIVOT LIMITED AGAINST CRAWFORD, CAROL EDNA; RE

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 11/1998

LCA 12/1998

DELIVERED ON:  7 June 1999
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATES:  22 April 1999
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation - Proceedings to obtain compensation - Preliminary requirements - Claim and delay in making claim - Generally - Giving of claim to employer - Statutory requirements for giving - Whether complied with - Whether claim can be delivered "personally" to employer which is a body corporate - Whether claim delivered personally to a person designated by the employer if given to an employee who passed it on to a designated person.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Tas), s35(1).
Rae v Calor Gas Ltd [1995] SLT 244, referred to.
Pino v Prosser [1967] VR 835; Rogerson v Tchia (1995) 123 FLR 126, applied.

Aust Dig Workers Compensation [133]

Workers Compensation - Proceedings to obtain compensation - Determination of claims - Hearing - Procedural fairness - Natural justice - Determination by Tribunal of issue not raised by the parties without notice to them.

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, applied.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [147]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant (Pivot Limited):  S J N Brown
             Respondent (Carol Edna Crawford):    J F Bourke
Solicitors:
             Appellant (Pivot Limited):  Clarke & Gee
             Respondent (Carol Edna Crawford):    Zeeman Kable & Page

Judgment Number: [1999] TASSC 67
Number of Paragraphs: 33

Serial No 67/1999
File No LCA 11/1998
LCA 12/1998

IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 and IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE BY PIVOT LIMITED AGAINST CAROL EDNA CRAWFORD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD J
7 June 1999

Mrs Crawford was employed by Pivot Ltd ("Pivot") at its Scottsdale premises until 7 April 1997. On 1 October 1997 she obtained from a medical practitioner a certificate that she was totally incapacitated for work from 7 April 1997 until 7 November 1997. On 1 October 1997 she also completed a form claiming compensation pursuant to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act").

On 2 October 1997 a process server, Mr Adrian Medwin, went to Pivot's Scottsdale premises where Mrs Crawford had been employed. He had with him the claim form and a copy of the medical certificate, which he had been instructed to serve on Pivot. At Pivot's office he handed the documents to Ms Therese Hall, who was employed as the Office Administrator for Pivot. It was Ms Hall's evidence to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal that she suggested to Mr Medwin that he might like to see the manager, Mr Lester Rainbow, who would be returning to the office shortly. She said that Mr Medwin gave her a document (which must have been the claim form) and asked her to pass it on to the manager. On that basis she accepted the document and placed it on Mr Rainbow's…

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 Pivot Limited v Crawford

Details

AGLC: Pivot Limited against Crawford; Re [1999] TASSC 67
Case: [1999] TASSC 67
Decision Date: 7 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pivot Limited v Crawford involved a dispute over the procedural requirements of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in the context of a claim for workers' compensation. The central issue was whether the claim for compensation was properly delivered to the employer, Pivot Limited, in accordance with the statutory requirements. Mrs Crawford, the claimant, had submitted a claim for compensation to Pivot on 2 October 1997, which was received by an employee, Ms Hall, but not designated to receive such claims. The claim was eventually received by Mr Comerford, a designated person, on 7 October 1997. Pivot subsequently disputed the claim and referred the matter to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal. The Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute as the claim was not properly delivered to Pivot within the statutory timeframe. Pivot appealed this decision, arguing that the claim was indeed delivered to them on 7 October 1997 and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The court held that the claim for compensation could not be delivered personally to a body corporate such as Pivot, but rather had to be delivered to a designated person by the employer. Since Mr Comerford was a designated person and received the claim on 7 October 1997, the claim was properly delivered. However, the court found that the Tribunal had failed to accord natural justice to Pivot by determining an issue not raised by the parties, specifically whether Pivot had served Mrs Crawford with notice of its dispute within 14 days of receiving the claim. The court set aside the Tribunal's order that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the referral and directed that the Tribunal proceed with the reference in accordance with the Act. Mrs Crawford's appeal was dismissed as it was not necessary for her to appeal in order to argue that the claim was properly delivered to Pivot on 2 October 1997.

Orders