Workers' Compensation – Entitlement to compensation – Persons entitled to compensation – Who is a "worker" or "employee" – Particular occupations – Volunteer – Friend assisting handyman doing roofing work – No contractual relationship.

Aust Dig Workers' Compensation [46]

Workers' Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Determination of claims – Evidence – Generally – Dispute as to existence of contractual relationship – Power of tribunal to inform itself as it thinks fit – Evidence as to subjective intentions of parties.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Tas), s 49(1)(a).
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8, 209 CLR 95, distinguished.
Aust Dig Workers' Compensation [310]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  J R C Zeeman
             Respondent:  In person
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Simmons Wolfhagen

Judgment Number: [2021] TASSC 38
Number of paragraphs: 67

Serial No 38/2021
File No 598/2021

HARJOT SINGH RAI v DARREN LESLIE BERESFORD
trading as Darren's Home Handyman Service

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

25 August 2021

The respondent, Darren Beresford, operates a business as a sole trader using the name Darren's Home Handyman Service. On 8 March 2017 the appellant, Harjot Rai, was helping him with work that he was undertaking on the roof of a building in Sandy Bay. The appellant fell through the roof and was badly injured. He made a claim for workers compensation. The claim was disputed. It was referred to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal. It was dismissed by a Commissioner, Ms L D Wilkins, on the basis that the appellant was not a "worker" for the purposes of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"): R v DLB, trading as Darren's Home Handyman Service [2021] TASWRCT 9. The learned commissioner determined that there was no contractual relationship between the two men. That is to say, she concluded that there was no contract for the appellant to be paid for his work. This is an appeal from that decision.
By virtue of s 63(1) of the Act, this appeal cannot succeed unless the appellant establishes an error of law on the part of the Tribunal.

Background

There was uncontroversial evidence before the learned commissioner to the following effect:
· At all material times the respondent lived in a motel at Lutana. The appellant worked there in late 2014 and early 2015, and met the respondent. They did casual work together on a couple of occasions during that period. The two men worked together at the motel doing maintenance jobs on a couple of occasions in January 2015.
· On at least two occasions…

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 Rai v Beresford

Details

AGLC: Rai v Beresford [2021] TASSC 38
Case: [2021] TASSC 38
Decision Date: 25 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rai v Beresford, the dispute centred on the entitlement of the plaintiff to compensation for an injury sustained while assisting the defendant, who is a handyman, with roofing work on his property. The plaintiff was not a paid worker but a volunteer, and the case raised questions about the definition of "worker" or "employee" under the workers' compensation legislation. The matter was heard and determined by the Industrial Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's assistance to the defendant constituted a contractual relationship that would entitle the plaintiff to workers' compensation. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff could be considered an employee or a volunteer under the circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to assess the evidence presented regarding the subjective intentions of the parties involved and determine whether the plaintiff's activities with the defendant were covered by the workers' compensation provisions.

In its decision, the court held that the plaintiff's activities were not governed by a contractual relationship, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation. The court found that the evidence did not establish a contractual employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Instead, the plaintiff's involvement was purely voluntary. The court emphasised that the absence of a contractual relationship was a crucial factor in determining the plaintiff's entitlement to compensation. The court also noted its power to inform itself as it deemed fit, considering the evidence presented about the subjective intentions of the parties involved.

As a result of the court's findings, the plaintiff's claim for compensation was dismissed. The court's decision underscored the importance of establishing a contractual relationship between the parties for workers' compensation claims. The court's reasoning was grounded in the lack of evidence supporting the existence of such a relationship, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for the injury sustained during the roofing work.

Orders