Court backs clarity of reasoning in Tribunal decisions

John Holland vs TAC Pacific

This recent Supreme Court decision includes an interesting discussion of a decision-maker's natural justice obligation, where the decision-maker relies on case law (about which neither party made submissions prior to the decision).

It's relevant to tribunal decisions because the decision suggests while the parties may have had the opportunity to make submissions about the substantive issues in dispute, if the decision-maker considers a particular issue, e.g. case law, act provision, legal principle or evidence, that forms a significant basis for the decision, the decision-maker must notify the parties of this issue and allow them to respond prior to making the decision.

Check out the full summary of the case

Summary of the Industrial Court decision of Q-COMP v Green

This case is noteworthy for President Hall's application of section 36A relating to latent onset injuries, particularly about determining when the Applicant's lung cancer was 'sustained' for the purpose of applying the relevant compensation Act definitions of 'worker' and 'injury'.

Check out the full summary of the case

Summary of Ergon Energy Corporation Limited v Rice-McDonald & Ors [2009] QSC 213

Mr Graham Bathe lodged an application for compensation for lung cancer alleged to have been contracted during his employment with Ergon Energy Corporation Limited (Applicant).

The tribunal found Mr Bathe's employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury and that he had sustained an 'injury' within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

The Applicant sought review of the decision of the tribunal by way of Judicial Review in the Supreme Court. Their principle argument was that the tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons.

His Honour stated that the tribunal's process of reasoning was clear and was made in accordance with the evidence. The reasons although brief were sufficient.