Workers Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Onus of proof – Disputes as to liability for weekly payments and other benefits – Referral by employer pursuant to the Act disputing liability to continue to pay – Employer bears the onus of proof.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), ss 25(1), 49(2), 81, 81A(5), 81AA, 81(AB).
Skilled Group Limited v Anning [2014] TASSC 40; Fishpool v Incat Tasmania Pty Ltd [2013] TASFC 6; GIO Australia Limited v Lovell [2000] TASSC 75; State of Tasmania v Parsons [2002] TASSC 59, considered.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [292]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  K E Read SC
             Respondent:  R J Phillips
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Page Seager
             Respondent:  Phillips Taglieri

Judgment Number: [2015] TASSC 18
Number of paragraphs: 47

Serial No 18/2015
File No 17/2015

SKILLED GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 585 811) v
ADAM SAMUEL ANNING

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ESTCOURT J

14 May 2015

The Appeal

This appeal, from the decision of Chief Commissioner Carey in Skilled Group Limited v A [2014] TASWRCT 47, concerns the question of whether it is the employer or the worker who bears the onus of proof upon a reference to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal (the Tribunal) made by the employer pursuant to s 81A(5) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act).
Given that the statutory entitlement to make such a reference is bestowed by s 81A(5) upon an employer who wishes to dispute liability to continue to pay compensation to a worker in respect of an injury, one would have thought that it was quite clear that the onus would lie with the employer who seeks to establish facts justifying the cessation of payments. Obviously, to the appellant at least, who on this appeal contends to the contrary, the matter is not so clear.
This is somewhat surprising given that on the hearing of an appeal to this Court against a procedural decision of the Tribunal in the same reference, the appellant contended that in the s 81A(5) proceedings the employer bears the onus of proving that it is not liable to continue making weekly payments of compensation: Skilled Group Limited v Anning [2014] TASSC 40 at [17].
The appellant's present contention is even more surprising given that s 49(2)(b) of the Act, headed "Procedure of Tribunal" and contained in Pt V of the Act entitled "Dispute Resolution", and applying to all proceedings before the Tribunal, provides that the onus of proving an initial entitlement to a payment of compensation to a worker lies on the worker, but that the onus of…

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 Skilled Group Limited v Anning

Details

AGLC: Skill Group Limited v Anning [2015] TASSC 18
Case: [2015] TASSC 18
Decision Date: 14 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Skilled Group Limited and Anning faced off in court in a dispute concerning workers' compensation. The employer, Skilled Group, sought to dispute its liability to continue paying weekly payments and other benefits to Anning, who claimed to be injured in the course of her employment. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues revolved around the burden of proof in disputes concerning the employer's liability to provide ongoing compensation. Specifically, the court had to determine who bore the onus of proving the employer's liability to continue paying weekly benefits and other compensation to the injured worker.

The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to ascertain the onus of proof. It was established that under the relevant legislation, the employer bears the onus of proving the disputed liability to continue paying weekly payments and other benefits. The court relied on precedents that emphasized the importance of the employer providing clear and convincing evidence to dispute the injured worker's entitlement to compensation. The reasoning centred on the statutory language and the principle that the onus of proof rests on the party seeking to overturn the presumption of liability, which, in this case, was the employer.

Consequently, the court ruled that Skilled Group Limited must prove the grounds for disputing Anning's entitlement to weekly payments and other benefits. The decision underscored the legislative intent to protect injured workers by placing the burden on the employer to provide compelling evidence to dispute liability. The court's judgment was clear: the onus of proof rested with the employer, aligning with the statutory framework and established legal principles.

Orders