Legal Research
Cases
Tassal Operations Pty Ltd v Lese

Tassal Operations Pty Ltd v Lese

Case [2021] TASSC 22 8 June 2021

Entitlement to Compensation

Causation

Aggravation or Acceleration of Disease

Workers Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

[2021] TASSC 22

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tassal Operations Pty Ltd v Lese [2021] TASSC 22

PARTIES:  TASSAL OPERATIONS PTY LTD
  v
  LESE, Penaia

FILE NO: LCA 2109/2020
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: Tassal Operations Pty Ltd v L [2020] TASWRCT 28

DELIVERED ON:  8 June 2021
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  20 November 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Pearce J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation – Entitlement to compensation – Injury, disease or disability – Disease – Aggravation or acceleration of pre-existing disease or condition – General principles – Causation – Employment major or most significant contributing factor to aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of pre-existing disease.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), ss 3, 25, 81A.
Long v Kmart Australia Ltd [2016] TASSC 6, 25 Tas R 237, applied.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [9]

Workers Compensation – Liability to pay compensation – Liability of employer – Other cases – Reasonably arguable case – Liability to pay compensation – Dependent on the existence of requisite causal relationship between employment and injury.

St Helens Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth [2007] TASSC 90, 17 Tas R 43; Vos Construction & Joinery Pty Ltd v Norton Smith [2016] TASSC 38, 26 Tas R 448; Bradshaw v Tasmania Networks Pty Ltd [2019] TASSC 41; Bradshaw v Tasmania Networks Pty Ltd [2020] TASFC 2, applied.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [220]

Workers Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Preliminary requirements – Interim payments – Reasonably arguable case for employer not established – No error established.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), s 81A.
Protective Security Pty Ltd v Bedelph [2004] TASSC 128, 13 Tas R 354; St Helens Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth [2007] TASSC 90, 17 Tas R 43; Burrage v Rural Press Limited [2013] TASSC 43, applied.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [303]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  C Dockray
             Respondent:  S Taglieri SC
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  HWB Ebsworth Lawyers
             Respondent:  Dobson Mitchell and Allport

Judgment Number: [2021] TASSC 22
Number of paragraphs: 48

Serial No 22/2021
File No LCA 2109/2020

TASSAL OPERATIONS PTY LTD (ABN 38 106 324 127)
v PENAIA LESE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PEARCE J

8 June 2021

On 12 August 2020 the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Tribunal, constituted by Chief Commissioner Clues, determined a reference brought by the appellant under s 81A of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) concerning a claim made by the respondent for weekly payments and other benefits under the Act.
The Tribunal determined that the appellant had not established that there was a reasonably arguable case to dispute liability for a claim and ordered that the appellant make weekly payments and pay benefits from 14 April 2020: Tassal Operations Pty Ltd v L [2020] TASWRCT 28. This is an appeal against that order. Shortly stated, the issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonably arguable that the respondent did not suffer an injury, as defined in s 3 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 Tassal Operations Pty Ltd v Lese

Details

AGLC: Tassal Operations Pty Ltd v Lese [2021] TASSC 22
Case: [2021] TASSC 22
Decision Date: 8 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tassal Operations Pty Ltd was in dispute with Lese, a former employee, regarding workers' compensation. The issue centred on whether Lese was entitled to compensation for an aggravation or acceleration of a pre-existing disease. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Division of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central legal issues were whether Lese's employment with Tassal Operations was a major or most significant contributing factor to the aggravation of his pre-existing disease and if so, whether he was entitled to compensation.

The court examined the evidence and legal principles surrounding workers' compensation claims for disease aggravation. It considered whether the employment was a major or most significant contributing factor to the aggravation of Lese's pre-existing disease. The court had to determine if the aggravation was primarily due to employment factors or if other factors played a more significant role. The court also assessed the causation principles and the weight of evidence presented by both parties.

The court concluded that Lese's employment was not the major or most significant contributing factor to the aggravation of his pre-existing disease. The evidence indicated that other factors, including Lese's lifestyle and pre-existing health conditions, played a more substantial role. Therefore, the court found that Lese was not entitled to workers' compensation for the aggravation of his disease. The court dismissed Lese's claim for compensation.

Orders