Tas v Clements

[2010] TASSC 59

Supreme Court of Tasmania

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Workers Compensation
2. › Proceedings to obtain compensation
3. › Determination of claims
4. › Procedure
5. › Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal
6. › Application to re-open case after findings of fact made but no final determination
7. › Relevant factors
8. › Whether potential remedy against legal advisers a relevant consideration
9. › Whether possibility of further claim or reconsideration relevant
10. › Whether Tribunal misdirected itself as to its role
11. › Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), ss 49, 57, 61, 62, 71, 138AB
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Re-opening of case
3. › Application to adduce further evidence after findings of fact but before final determination
4. › Interests of justice test
5. › Relevant considerations
6. › Whether availability of remedy against legal adviser relevant
7. › Whether possibility of alternative proceedings relevant
1. Administrative Law
2. › Tribunals
3. › Error of law
4. › Failure to take into account relevant considerations
5. › Taking into account irrelevant considerations
6. › Misdirection
7. › Materiality of error

Quick Take

The possibility of a remedy against a worker's legal adviser is a relevant consideration on an application to re-open a case before a workers compensation tribunal, but great caution should be exercised in attaching weight to it, particularly where there is no direct evidence of the likelihood of success of such action. The possibility of alternative proceedings (including reconsideration under s 62(2) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas)) is also a relevant consideration going to the degree of prejudice to the opposing party.