Roberts Limited v Barker, Darryl Owen - [1998] TASSC 137

137/1998

PARTIES:  ROBERTS LIMITED
  v
  BARKER, Darryl Owen

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 7/1998
DELIVERED:  3 November 1998
HEARING DATE/S:  19, 20 and 21 October 1998
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation - Proceedings to obtain compensation - Determination of claims - Appeals and stated cases - Question of law - What constitutes - Whether a failure by the Commissioner to give adequate reasons for determination - Whether an error of law - Credibility of the worker - Whether a duty to give sufficient or adequate reasons.

Gulf Industries Pty Ltd & Another v Barnett (1996) 6 Tas R 142; In Returned Services League of Australia (Devonport Sub Branch) v Garwood A59/1995; Burgess v Umina Park Home for the Aged and Another (1993) 2 Tas R 246; Attorney-General (Tas) v Smith A87/1994; McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd v Williams 25/1997; Briscoe v Turner 128/1997, followed.
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247, followed.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas) ss 86(1)(c), 63(1), 61(3) and 86(3).
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [161]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  M E O'Farrell
             Respondent:  D J Porter QC
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Dobson Mitchell and Allport
             Respondent:  Walsh Day and Fitzgerald

Judgment category classification:
Court Computer Code:
Judgment ID Number:  137/1997
Number of pages:  15

Serial No 137/1998
File No LCA 7/1998

ROBERTS LIMITED v DARRYL OWEN BARKER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

3 November 1998

The appellant employer appeals against a decision of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal ordering the employer to recommence the payment of weekly compensation to the respondent worker. The grounds distil down to an assertion that the learned Commissioner failed to give adequate reasons for his determination.
In the opening paragraph of the reasons for his determination, the learned Commissioner summarised the background to the reference before him as follows:

"The worker was, at all relevant times, employed on a casual basis by the employer to perform duties of a stock assessor and sale yard attendant performing duties at various livestock auctions conducted by the employer. In March 1993 the worker suffered an injury to his back when he was struck by an animal in the course of his employment. This injury did not respond to conservative treatment and in June 1994 he underwent surgery in the form a decompressive hemilaminectomy at L5/S 1. Subsequent to this surgery he recovered to the extent that he was able to return to doing his normal duties. In addition to performing this work with the employer the worker also conducted his own business as a farmer on both a property that he owned and also another property he leased. On 24 October 1995 the worker once again suffered an injury to his back when he fell from a fence railing at a sale yard whilst performing duties in the course of his employment. He was totally incapacitated as a result of this injury and remained so, receiving weekly payments from that date. These…

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 Roberts Limited v Barker, Darryl Owen 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: [1998] TASSC 137
Decision Date: 3 November 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The employer, Roberts Limited, appealed against a decision of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal that required the employer to recommence the payment of weekly compensation to the respondent worker, Darryl Owen Barker. The appeal centred on whether the learned Commissioner failed to give adequate reasons for his determination. The Commissioner had summarised the background to the reference before him, noting that the worker was employed on a casual basis to perform duties of a stock assessor and sale yard attendant. The worker had suffered an injury to his back in March 1993 and subsequently underwent surgery in June 1994. The worker had also suffered another injury to his back in October 1995, which led to total incapacity and the termination of weekly payments by the employer. The employer had relied on a medical certificate provided by Dr T Stewart to support the termination of payments. The worker referred this action by the employer to the Tribunal for determination.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the learned Commissioner failed to give adequate reasons for his determination and whether the Commissioner was obligated to make reasoned findings in relation to the credibility of the worker, and explain his reasons for accepting and rejecting parts of the worker's evidence. The court considered that the learned Commissioner was obliged to give adequate reasons for his decision, and a failure to do so amounted to an error of law. The court concluded that the learned Commissioner had indeed failed to give adequate reasons for his determination, particularly in accepting part of the worker's evidence while rejecting other parts. The court also noted that the learned Commissioner did not make a reasoned finding on the issue which divided the doctors, namely whether the worker's assertions in relation to his history and disability could be relied upon.

The appeal was upheld, and the determination and order made by the learned Commissioner were set aside. The reference was remitted for hearing before another Commissioner.

Orders