Legal Research
Cases
Thompson v Cooee Point Abattoirs Pty Ltd

Thompson v Cooee Point Abattoirs Pty Ltd

Case [2002] TASSC 41 2 July 2002

Contract Formation

Contract of Service vs. Independent Contractor

Control Test

Intention of the Parties

Workers Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

[2002] TASSC 41

CITATION: Thompson v Cooee Point Abattoirs Pty Ltd [2002] TASSC 41

PARTIES:  THOMPSON, Gary John
  v
  COOEE POINT ABATTOIRS PTY LTD

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  BDR LCA 19/2001
DELIVERED ON:  2 July 2002
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATES:  18 June 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood J
CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation - Entitlement to and liability for compensation - Persons entitled to compensation - Who is a worker - Contract of service or independent contractor - Generally - Alteration of employer/employee relationship by entry into contract.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Tas), s3(1).
Holliss v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 181 ALR 263, applied.
Johns Perry Hayward Pty Ltd v Greaves A72/1990, followed.
Global Plant Ltd v Secretary of State for Social Services [1972] 1 QB 139, discussed.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [87]

Workers Compensation - Proceedings to obtain compensation - Appeals and stated cases - Question of law - What constitutes - Whether determination of Tribunal necessarily outside the definition of worker in statute.

Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council (2001) 178 ALR 1, applied.
The Board of the TGIO v Friends' Building Services Pty Ltd B37/1991; Laird & TGIO Ltd v Shand B55/1996, followed.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Tas), s63.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [161]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  R C Glover
             Respondent:  A J Hall
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Smith & Glover
             Respondent:  C N Dockray

Judgment Number: [2002] TASSC 41
Number of Paragraphs: 34

Serial No 41/2002
File No BDR LCA 19/2001

GARY JOHN THOMPSON v COOEE POINT ABATTOIRS PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J

2 July 2002

Introduction

The appellant worked as a slaughterman at the respondent's premises. He suffered an injury to his right shoulder on 17 August 2000. The appellant claimed that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent. A claim for compensation was not made until February 2001. Liability was not disputed in accordance with the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"), s81A, but no weekly payments were made. By an application dated 30 April 2001, the appellant applied to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for an order for payment of weekly payments and medical and related expenses.

The transcript of proceedings in the Tribunal commences with the learned Chief Commissioner stating that it is his understanding "that the only issue that the parties want me to decide in relation to this matter at this stage is the question of employment relationship". Those representing the parties said that that was so, and the Tribunal heard evidence from the appellant and a co‑worker. The respondent adduced no evidence. The Tribunal determined that the appellant was not a worker and dismissed the reference. This appeal is brought from that order.

Why the proceedings took the course they did is not apparent to me. Why the appellant did not prove the making and service of a claim for compensation in accordance…

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 Thompson v Cooee Point Abattoirs Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Thompson v Cooee Point Abattoirs Pty Ltd [2002] TASSC 41
Case: [2002] TASSC 41
Decision Date: 2 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania was called upon to determine whether the appellant, Gary John Thompson, was entitled to workers' compensation from the respondent, Cooee Point Abattoirs Pty Ltd, following an injury he sustained while working as a slaughterman. The central issue was whether Thompson was a 'worker' within the meaning of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas). This required the court to examine the nature of the employment relationship between Thompson and the respondent.

The appeal hinged on the interpretation of Thompson's status as either an employee or an independent contractor at the time of his injury. The Tribunal had determined that Thompson was an independent contractor and not a worker, thus dismissing his claim for compensation. Thompson argued that the Tribunal's finding was incorrect and that he should be considered a worker entitled to compensation. The court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal's decision was legally sound.

In its reasoning, the Court examined the written contract between Thompson and the respondent, which specified that Thompson would work as a contract slaughterman and provide his own tools and insurance. The Court noted that while the contract altered certain aspects of the employment relationship, such as the method of payment and the cessation of superannuation contributions, it did not necessarily transform Thompson into an independent contractor. The Court highlighted that the overall relationship, including factors such as the degree of control exerted by the respondent and the continuity of the working arrangement, needed to be assessed.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal's determination was flawed in law. The evidence did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Thompson was an independent contractor at the time of his injury. The Court found that Thompson's status as a worker under the Act was a question that could be answered differently based on the totality of the circumstances. Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect and dismissed the appeal.

Orders