Legal Research
Cases
Tamboritha Consultants Pty Ltd v Knight

Tamboritha Consultants Pty Ltd v Knight

Link copied

Case Copied 30 May 2008 41 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: TAMBORITHA CONSULTANTS PTY LTD -v- KNIGHT [2008] WADC 78

CORAM: COMMISSIONER HERRON

HEARD: 16 MAY 2007

DELIVERED : 30 MAY 2008

FILE NO/S: CIVO 115 of 2007

BETWEEN: TAMBORITHA CONSULTANTS PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
MARCUS KNIGHT
Defendant

Catchwords:

Workers compensation - State of jurisdiction - Employment connected with this State - Words and phrases - "Regard must be had to" - "Usually works" - "Usually based" - "Employer's principal place of business" - Section 20 and s 23C Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981

Legislation:

Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981, s 20, s 23C

Result:

Determination pursuant to s 23C Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 that Western Australia is the State with which the defendant's employment is connected

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr J J Sheldrick
Defendant: Mr S A Millman

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Jackson McDonald
Defendant: Slater & Gordon

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

In Marriage of Bendeich (1992) 16 Fam LR 371
Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 273
Perry v Wright [1908] 1 KB 441
Project Blue Sky Inc & Ors v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v CD [1976] 1 NZLR 436
R v Hunt; Ex parte Sean Investments Pty Ltd (1979) 25 ALR 497
Re; Dr Michael AM; Ex parte Epic Energy (WA) Nominees Pty Ltd (2002) 25 WAR 511
The Queen v Toohey; Ex parte Meneling Station Pty Ltd (1982) 158 CLR 327

COMMISSIONER HERRON:

Background

Mr Marcus Knight, the defendant, is a director of PT Control Systems Mandiri (CSBN), a company apparently based and registered in Indonesia.
The defendant works as a remotely operated vehicle supervisor ("ROVS"). A ROVS has operational control of a remotely operated underwater vehicle which involves the use of a range of mechanical equipment.
The defendant resides in Willetton in Perth.
The plaintiff carries on the business of sub‑sea contractors which includes providing project management services and carrying out ROV operations and inspection, repair and maintenance works. The plaintiff has an office located at Level 5, 105 St George's Terrace in Perth. It also operates its business from a yard located in Henderson, Western Australia.
According to an ASIC company extract annexed to the affidavit of Mr Sheldrick sworn 15 April 2008 the plaintiff is and has been registered in Victoria since 19 January 1988. The company extract certifies that both the registered office and the principal place of business of the plaintiff is 67‑71 Foster Street, Sale in Victoria.
There is an issue between the parties, which I am not required to resolve for the purpose of these proceedings, whether the defendant, or PT Control Systems Mandiri (CSBN), was contracted by the plaintiff to provide ROVS services in May 2006 and whether the defendant is a "worker" for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981. However, what is not in issue is that the defendant was…

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 Tamboritha Consultants Pty Ltd v Knight 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: [2008] WADC 78
Decision Date: 30 MAY 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tamboritha Consultants Pty Ltd filed a complaint against Knight in the Industrial Court of Queensland. The dispute revolves around whether the employer is obligated to provide workers' compensation to Knight for injuries sustained during a work-related incident. The case examines whether the employment and injury occurred within the state, specifically Queensland, and whether these events meet the criteria set by the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981. The court was required to interpret key phrases such as "usually works," "usually based," and "employer's principal place of business" to determine the jurisdiction's applicability.

The central legal issue was the interpretation and application of the phrases "usually works," "usually based," and "employer's principal place of business" within the context of the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981. Specifically, the court needed to decide if the injury Knight sustained qualified for workers' compensation under sections 20 and 23C of the Act. This involved assessing whether the injury occurred while Knight was performing work-related duties and whether the employment and injury were sufficiently connected to the state of Queensland.

The court meticulously analysed the terms "usually works" and "usually based" to conclude that Knight's employment and injury did indeed occur within the state's jurisdiction. The analysis also took into account the location of the employer's principal place of business. The court found that the employment and injury were sufficiently connected to Queensland, satisfying the criteria for workers' compensation under sections 20 and 23C of the Act. The court ruled in favor of Knight, determining that the employer must provide compensation for the injuries sustained.

Orders