Toll Transport Pty Ltd v Medwin - [2018] TASSC 15

[2018] TASSC 15

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Toll Transport Pty Ltd v Medwin [2018] TASSC 15

PARTIES:  TOLL TRANSPORT PTY LTD
  (T/AS TOLL TASMANIA) (ACN 006 604 191)
  v
MEDWIN, Logan William Ryan

FILE NO: 544/2017
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: Toll Holdings Limited v M (Ref No 1/2017)
[2017] TASWRCT 2

DELIVERED ON:  10 April 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:  3 July 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation – Determination of claims – Jurisdiction of courts, tribunals, commissions and boards – Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal (Tas) — Referral to Tribunal – Tribunal determined that a reasonably arguable case did not exist – Whether findings of Tribunal inconsistent – Whether evidence of plausible potential causes inconsistent with liability – No error of law.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Tas), s 81A.
St Helen's Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth [2007] TASSC 90, 17 Tas R 43 at [15], applied.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [3050]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  K Read SC
             Respondent:  S Taglieri
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Page Seager Lawyers
             Respondent:  Slater and Gordon

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 15
Number of paragraphs: 35

Serial No 15/2018
File No 544/2017

TOLL TRANSPORT PTY LTD (T/AS TOLL TASMANIA) (ACN 006 604 191)
v LOGAN WILLIAM RYAN MEDWIN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

10 April 2018

This appeal concerns a disputed claim for workers compensation and a determination made by the Chief Commissioner of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal, Mr R Webster, pursuant to s 81A of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"). The Chief Commissioner determined that he was not satisfied that the employer had a reasonably arguable case concerning the claim, and dismissed the employer's reference to the Tribunal. To now succeed on appeal the employer, being the appellant, must show that the learned Chief Commissioner made an error of law in his determination: s 63(1) of the Act. If the evidentiary material before the Chief Commissioner necessarily leads to a conclusion that a reasonably arguable case did exist, then he would have made such an error: St Helen's Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth [2007] TASSC 90, 17 Tas R 43 at [15].
In October 2016, the respondent, Logan Medwin, lodged a claim for workers compensation supported by a medical certificate. He was employed as a fitter/welder in the appellant's Burnie workshop. He claimed compensation for an injury or condition that occurred on 7 October 2016 when he had been "abused, discriminated and assaulted verbally by a co-worker". He added that this conduct had been on-going since February. He stated that "on the Friday [referring to 7 October] I couldn't take it any more as I had an anxiety attack and more which is stated in worker's comp med cert". He asserted the occurrence caused "work related stress and anxiety and producing signs of depression".
The workers compensation medical certificate provided by Dr Waheed Al Tamimi stated that she examined the respondent on 7 October…

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 Toll Transport Pty Ltd v Medwin 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: [2018] TASSC 15
Decision Date: 10 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Toll Transport Pty Ltd was a party to a legal dispute with Medwin, concerning workers' compensation claims. The dispute was heard by the court, which had to determine whether the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal in Tasmania made an error in its legal assessment. The Tribunal had previously decided that a reasonably arguable case did not exist regarding Medwin's claims against Toll Transport Pty Ltd. The key legal issues revolved around whether the Tribunal's findings were inconsistent and whether the evidence of plausible potential causes was inconsistent with the liability of Toll Transport Pty Ltd.

The court examined whether the Tribunal erred in its legal conclusions, focusing on the consistency of the findings and the interpretation of the evidence presented. It considered whether the evidence of plausible potential causes could be reconciled with the Tribunal's determination that no liability existed. The court found no legal error in the Tribunal's decision, concluding that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the law and evidence in this matter. The findings were consistent, and the evidence did not necessarily point to liability on the part of Toll Transport Pty Ltd.

In its judgment, the court upheld the decision of the Tribunal, confirming that there was no error of law. The court found that the Tribunal's reasoning and conclusions were sound, and therefore the appeal was dismissed. The final orders of the court were to affirm the Tribunal's decision, and Medwin's claims against Toll Transport Pty Ltd were not upheld.

Orders