Young v Tasmanian Contracting Services Pty Ltd

[2012] TASFC 1

COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)

CITATION:              Young v Tasmanian Contracting Service Pty Ltd [2012] TASFC 1

PARTIES:  YOUNG, Anthony Henry
  v
  TASMANIAN CONTRACTING SERVICES PTY LTD

FILE NO:  801/2011
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM:            Tasmanian Contracting Services Pty Ltd v Young [2011] TASSC 49

DELIVERED ON:  3 July 2012
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  28 February 2012
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow, Tennent and Wood JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Determination of claim – Appeals, judicial review and stated cases – Question of law – Generally – What amounts to error in point of law.

Protective Security Services Pty Ltd v Bedelph (2004) 13 Tas R 354; Hall (Inspector of Taxes) v Lorimer[1992] 1 WLR 939; Bill Williams Pty Ltd v Williams (1972) 126 CLR 146, referred to.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), s63(1).

Aust Dig Workers Compensation [340]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  S P Estcourt QC and S Taglieri
             Respondent:  P Jackson
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Hilliard & Associates
             Respondent:  Abetz Curtis

Judgment Number:  [2012] TASFC 1
Number of paragraphs:  45

Serial No 1/2012
File No 801/2011

ANTHONY HENRY YOUNG v
TASMANIAN CONTRACTING SERVICES PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT

BLOW J
TENNENT J
WOOD J
3 July 2012

Order of the Court

1. Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 1/2012
File No 801/2011

ANTHONY HENRY YOUNG v
TASMANIAN CONTRACTING SERVICES PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT

BLOW J
3 July 2012

1. I have read the judgment of Tennent J in draft form.  I agree that this appeal should be dismissed, and agree with all that her Honour has written.  There is a little that I would like to add.

1. For the reasons stated by Tennent J, the only question before the learned primary judge was whether, as a matter of law, on the facts as found by the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal, that Tribunal was obliged to conclude that the appellant, Mr Young, was not a "worker" for the purposes of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. In practical terms, the question was whether the Tribunal was obliged to find that the appellant was an independent contractor with no right to workers compensation, as distinct from an employee with a right to workers compensation. The learned primary judge concluded that the Tribunal was obliged, as a matter of law, to conclude that the appellant was not a "worker", but an independent contractor, and therefore not entitled to workers compensation. In my view that conclusion was correct.

1. On the facts as found by the Tribunal, the matters that weighed in favour of a finding that the appellant was an independent contractor were as follows:

·     He and the respondent, Tasmanian Contracting Services Pty Ltd ("TCS"), entered into a written contract in which he acknowledged that there was no employer/employee relationship. 

·     It was an express term of that contract that TCS had no responsibility to him, except that he was "guaranteed to be paid for actual on-site hours worked or…