Traut v Faustmann Bros Pty Ltd

[1983] FCA 137

Re: HANS TRAUT
And: FAUSTMANN BROS. PTY. LTD. (1983) 77 FLR 98
No. NTG 10 of 1983
Workmen's Compensation - Workers' Compensation

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Toohey(1), Lockhart(2) and Jenkinson JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Workmen's Compensation - nature of appeal to Supreme Court of Northern Territory from Workmen's Compensation Tribunal - meaning of "such appeal may be by way of rehearing" - onus of proof - whether transcript and exhibits before Tribunal should be evidence in appeal when objection by party.

Workmen's Compensation Act (N.T.) s. 26

Workers' Compensation - Nature of appeal to Supreme Court of the Nothern Territory from Workmen's Compensation Tribunal - Whether appeal was by way of rehearing or a hearing de novo - Whether transcript of evidence and exhibits tendered before Tribunal should be evidence in hearing of appeal - Burden of proof - Suggested appeal procedures - History of workers' compensation legislation in Northern Territory - Workmen's Compensation Act (NT), s 26.

HEADNOTE

Section 26 of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides as follows: "26. (1) Where the Tribunal makes a determination under this Act any party to the proceedings may appeal against the determination on a question of law or fact or both to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia within the time and in the manner prescribed by Rules of that Court and such appeal may be by way of rehearing.

(2) The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia shall decide the matter of the appeal and may either dismiss the appeal or reverse or vary the determination appealed against and may make such order as to the costs of the appeal or the proceeding before the Tribunal or both as it thinks fit."

The respondent employer (the employer) appealed to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia (the Supreme Court) against a determination of the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 13 May 1982 that the appellant (the workman), who was an employee of the respondent, was entitled to certain payments of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (the Act).

The learned Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made the following interlocutory order (the first order) on 14 April 1983:

"1. That the transcript of evidence from and exhibits tendered before the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal be evidence in the hearing of this Appeal.

2. That the parties be at liberty to call such further evidence as they may be advised.

3. That the costs of and incidental to this application be costs of the Appeal."

At the outset of the hearing of the employer's appeal to the Supreme Court from the Tribunal, the learned Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made a second interlocutory order (the second order) on 18 April 1983, namely that the workman "should begin and be dux litis, he bearing the onus of satisfying the court that he is entitled to the award of compensation which he claims". The workman challenged the second…