Legal Research
Cases
Tasmania v Pilling

Tasmania v Pilling

Case [2020] TASSC 13 8 May 2020

Notice of Injury

Preliminary Requirements

Notice to Employer

Workers Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

[2020] TASSC 13

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Pilling [2020] TASSC 13

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  PILLING, Teresa Ann

FILE NO: 2640/2019
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: State of Tasmania (Department of Health) v P [2019] TASWRCT 36

DELIVERED ON:             8 May 2020
DELIVERED AT:              Hobart
HEARING DATE:             3 February 2020
JUDGMENT OF:                Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Preliminary requirements – Notice of injury – Particular cases – Whether sending notice by facsimile to the worker's work unit amounts to giving notice to the employer.

Aust Dig Workers Compensation [293]

Workers Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Determination of claims – Procedure – Section 81A referral based on deficiency of notice– Whether s 37 should be taken into account in determining whether the employer has demonstrated an arguable case.

Aust Digt Workers Compensation [306]

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), ss 6, 32, 33, 37, 81A.
Tasmanian Health Service Act 2018 (Tas), ss 15, 19, 23.
Crown Proceedings Act 1993 (Tas), ss 3, 4, 13.
Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), rr 693, 709.
Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas), s 29AB.
Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (Tas), s 6.
State Service Act 2000 (Tas), ss 14, 37, 56.

Hazell Bros Pty Ltd v Adams [1999] TASSC 37; Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30, 199 CLR 462; Pivot Limited v Crawford [1999] TASSC 67, 8 Tas R 40; Sullivan v Hobart City Council and MMI Insurance Limited [1999] TASSC 101; St Helens Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth [2007] TASSC 90, 17 Tas R 43; Tasmania v Herlihy [2019] TASSC 5, referred to.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  O Robinson
             Respondent:  P Jackson SC
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Solicitor General

Respondent: C N Dockray

Judgment Number: [2020] TASSC 13
Number of paragraphs: 46

Serial No 13/2020
File No 2640/2019

STATE OF TASMANIA v TERESA ANN PILLING

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

8 May 2020

The respondent is a State Service employee who, at the time relevant to this case, was working as a patient services officer in the Specialist Clinic at the Launceston General Hospital. On 29 May 2019, the respondent made a workers compensation claim in respect of psychological injury which she alleged had occurred as a result of workplace bullying. She had left work to consult her general practitioner about stress arising from the alleged bullying on 22 May. The doctor certified as to incapacity for work in the prescribed form, and the respondent arranged for the doctor's receptionist to send the certificate to the facsimile number of the specialist clinic. It was conceded that the certificate constituted sufficient notice of the injury, but the question raised on this appeal is whether sending it by facsimile to the clinic amounted to giving notice to the employer in the manner prescribed by s 33 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the WRCA).
The claim was disputed by the appellant, who…

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 Tasmania v Pilling

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Pilling [2020] TASSC 13
Case: [2020] TASSC 13
Decision Date: 8 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tasmania was involved in a legal dispute with Pilling regarding workers' compensation. The issue at hand was whether sending a notice of injury by facsimile to the worker's work unit was sufficient to constitute notice to the employer. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The central legal question was whether the employer had received the necessary notice of the worker's injury in a timely manner, as required by the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas). Specifically, the court had to determine if sending the notice via facsimile to the worker's work unit met the statutory requirement of giving notice to the employer.

The court considered the statutory obligations and the practicalities of communication in the workplace. It held that the statutory requirement for notice to the employer was not satisfied by sending the notice by facsimile to the work unit. The court reasoned that the notice needed to be directly communicated to the employer or an individual who could effectively relay the information to the employer. Sending the notice to the work unit did not meet this criterion. Therefore, the court found that the employer had not received proper notice of the worker's injury. As a result, the claim for compensation was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the precise interpretation of the statutory requirements and the importance of direct communication to the employer.

Orders