Sarac v Itxcel Pty Ltd

Sarac was an applicant seeking to be recognised as a deemed worker under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (Vic) for injuries sustained during the course of his employment. The respondent, Itxcel Pty Ltd, denied that Sarac was a deemed worker and contested his claim for workers’ compensation. The matter was heard initially by a Senior Arbitrator, and on appeal to a Presidential Member of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The applicant contended that he was a deemed worker and that the respondent’s failure to record his counsel’s submission to lift the corporate veil was an error on the face of the record. The applicant argued that this error should be considered in the appeal from the Arbitrator to the Presidential Member. The central legal issues were whether the applicant was a deemed worker, whether there was an error on the face of the record, and the application of statutory policy and interpretation of beneficial legislation in the context of workers’ compensation.

The court examined whether the applicant was a deemed worker under the legislation, taking into account the principles in Scerri v Cahill. It noted that the applicant’s role as a working director of his own company was a significant factor. The court also considered whether the submission to lift the corporate veil was properly recorded and whether this omission constituted an error on the face of the record. It was noted that the obligation lies with counsel to clearly articulate their submissions, and the court found that the omission did not affect the outcome of the case. The court further considered whether the contract was between the applicant and the respondent or between the applicant’s company and the respondent. The principles in Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd were found not to be applicable to the claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The statutory policy of insurance and the interpretation of beneficial legislation were also discussed, with a focus on sections 352 and clause 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act.

The court confirmed the Senior Arbitrator’s determination, finding that the applicant was not a deemed worker and that the error on the face of the record did not affect the outcome. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Senior Arbitrator was upheld. The court held that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proving that he was a deemed worker under the Act. The principles of statutory interpretation and the relevant provisions of the Act were applied to support this decision.