Skilled Group Limited v Briers - [2013] TASSC 40

[2013] TASSC 40

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Skilled Group Limited v Briers [2013] TASSC 40

PARTIES:  SKILLED GROUP LIMITED
  v
  BRIERS, John Desmond

FILE NO/S: 626/2012
DETERMINATION

APPEALED FROM: B v Skilled Group Limited [2012] TASWRCT 20

DELIVERED ON:  5 August 2013
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  7 December 2012
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers' Compensation – Assessment and amount of compensation – Amount of compensation during incapacity – Weekly payments – Total incapacity – Generally – Interpretation of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, s69(14).

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), s69.
Roche Bros Pty Ltd v Brown [1989] Tas R 42; HEST Australia Ltd v McInerney (1998) 71 SASR 526, referred to.
Aust Dig Workers' Compensation [374]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  P L Jackson
             Respondent:  J Green
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Jackson Tremayne & Fay
             Respondent:  John Green Lawyer

Judgment Number: [2012] TASSC 40
Number of paragraphs: 28

Serial No 40/2013
File No 626/2012

SKILLED GROUP LIMITED v JOHN DESMOND BRIERS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

5 August 2013

On 29 July 2011, John Desmond Briers ("the respondent") was injured while working at the Hobart tip. A truck knocked him down and backed over his legs resulting in injuries to his legs and feet. The respondent duly notified his employer of the injury and claimed compensation. The claim was accepted and payments commenced at the rate of $234.21 per week. In November 2011, payments ceased.

On 14 December 2011, pursuant to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"), s42, the respondent referred his dispute about payments with his employer to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal ("the tribunal"). At the hearing of the referral before the tribunal, the respondent claimed to be entitled to weekly payments of $580.90, while the employer, Skilled Group Limited ("the appellant"), asserted he was only entitled to $224.84. The tribunal determined on 25 June 2012 that the respondent was entitled to weekly payments of $591.56.

Relevant facts

Commissioner Chandler ("the commissioner"), who constituted the tribunal for the purpose of the impugned decision, set out the relevant facts at pars[2] – [10] of his decision. They were as follows:

"2 The employer is Skilled Group Ltd, a labour hire business based in Somerset. One of its clients is the Hobart City Council ('the Council'). In 2011 the worker was a member of the employer's labour pool. He has work experience as a general labourer and truck driver.
3 The employer first hired out the worker's labour on 15 November 2010 when he began brush cutting work for the Council in the foothills of Mount Wellington. The worker continued with this work through to April 2011, usually working either four or five days per week. By May 2011 the worker had been assigned to labouring duties for the Council at Cornelian Bay where he also worked either four or five days per week. In June and July 2011 he continued his labouring work with the Council, mainly at its refuse…

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 Briers

Details

AGLC: Skilled Group Limited v Briers [2013] TASSC 40
Case: [2013] TASSC 40
Decision Date: 5 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Skilled Group Limited versus Briers, the dispute centred around the appropriate amount of workers' compensation payable to the claimant following an injury sustained during his employment. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The claimant, Briers, argued that he was entitled to a higher rate of weekly compensation due to his total incapacity, while the respondent, Skilled Group Limited, contended that the statutory maximum should apply.

The primary legal issue the court needed to resolve was the interpretation of section 69(14) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. This section establishes the formula for calculating weekly compensation payments during a period of total incapacity. The court had to determine whether the statutory maximum rate of compensation should apply to the claimant's situation, or if there were circumstances that warranted a higher rate of payment.

The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to understand the scope and application of section 69(14). It was determined that the statutory maximum rate of compensation applied to the claimant's situation, as his total incapacity did not fall within the exceptions outlined in the legislation. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the respondent and dismissed the claimant's application for a higher rate of weekly compensation.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales ordered that the claimant, Briers, was entitled to the statutory maximum rate of weekly compensation during his period of total incapacity, as provided for in section 69(14) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The claimant's application for an increased rate of compensation was dismissed, and the respondent, Skilled Group Limited, was not required to pay any additional compensation to the claimant.

Orders