Tasmanian worker’s compensation win – administrative action was not reasonable nor taken in a reasonable manner

In February 2025, Hall Payne Lawyers secured a significant win in the Supreme Court of Tasmania when the Court handed down a decision clarifying what the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) must consider when determining whether an employer has a “reasonably arguable case” to dispute a worker’s compensation claim.

This decision means the Tribunal must give greater scrutiny of the evidence before it determines worker’s compensation claims.

Case reference: Morrison v State of Tasmania [2025] TASSC 5

Events that led to a worker’s compensation claim for psychological injury

A worker made a claim for worker’s compensation (Tasmania) for a psychological injury he acquired while working as a high school teacher at the Futures Program at Rosny College in Hobart. The Futures Program is located on the other side of Kangaroo Bay, approximately two kilometres from the main Rosny College campus.

The injury arose due to three decisions made by the employer, which included:

1. the school’s decision to readmit two students to the Futures Program (at another site away from the primary campus) who had a history of violence towards teachers and students at the school;
2. the decision failing to expel them from the school; and
3. the failure to consider the safety implications for staff and students.

The worker attended a meeting with the principal and assistant principal on 4 April 2024, where these decisions were relayed to him. This precipitated his incapacity for work due to a psychological condition.

The worker had a history of students engaging in violent incidents towards him and others over the course of his employment, including:

• a “really bad assault” by a student in 2012;
• an incident in 2022 when a student raised a chair and threatened to throw it at the worker; and
• a student threatening another student with a knife at the premises of the school, where the worker had to intervene by standing between them.

The worker lodged a worker’s compensation claim for psychological injury following the meeting on 4 April 2024.

The Tribunal’s initial determination – worker’s compensation benefits ceased

At first instance, the Tribunal needed to determine whether the employer had a “reasonably arguable case” to dispute the claim.

Under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the WRC Act”), compensation is not payable in respect of a disease which is an illness of the mind (i.e. a psychological illness/injury) where that injury arises from reasonable administrative action taken in a “reasonable manner by an employer in connection with a worker's employment”.

When an employer disputes a claim, they must file all the evidence to the Tribunal that they are relying on to make their case. The employer must prove that they have a reasonably arguable case to dispute a worker’s claim. This means they need to satisfy the Tribunal, on the evidence presented, that there is a possibility at a final contested hearing that it may be accepted and, therefore, the claim might ultimately fail.

In this matter, if the employer could reasonably argue the worker’s psychological injury arose substantially from “reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner by an employer in connection with the worker’s employment”, this forms an exemption to an entitlement to workers' compensation benefits.

The Tribunal determined that a reasonably arguable case existed for the employer to dispute the injured worker’s claim, and his entitlement to weekly payments and medical expenses ceased on 21 August 2024.

The Supreme Court decision – worker’s compensation benefits reinstated

Hall Payne Lawyers assisted the worker in appealing the Tribunal’s decision to the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the determination made by the Tribunal. Associate Judge Marshall determined that the Tribunal had failed to consider whether the actions of the employer satisfied all four elements of section 25(1A)(c) of the WRC Act.

These elements include:

1. The decisions made by the employer could be defined as “administrative action”;
2. The administrative action was reasonable;
3. The administrative action was taken in a reasonable manner;
4. The administrative action was taken in connection with the worker’s employment.

Considerations of the Supreme Court that led to the Tribunal decision being overturned

His honour determined that the decisions made by the employer were administrative action (element 1 above) and that they were taken in connection with the worker’s employment (element 4 above).

However, His Honour determined that the Tribunal had completely ignored the question of whether the administrative action was reasonable (element 2 above) or taken in a reasonable manner (element 3 above). 

The Supreme Court determined that based on the evidence before the Tribunal, they could not have come to the conclusion that the administrative action was reasonable or had been taken in a reasonable manner. This is because the employer solely relied on a statement from the principal of the school to satisfy all four elements.

The principal’s statement outlined that the injured worker was informed that all reasonable steps had been taken concerning the incident involving the students in line with Department of Education, Children and Young People policies and documentation. However, no evidence of the policies and documentation were ever provided to the Tribunal to support this assertion.

The uncontested facts also showed that the two students were too great a risk to be re-admitted to the main Rosny campus of the school, but it was determined they could be admitted to the Futures Program at a separate campus instead.

His honour was also troubled by the way the meeting was conducted on 4 April 2024, which precipitated the worker’s incapacity for work. The meeting was attended by the worker and the assistant principal.

The assistant principal sought the attendance of the principal to be a witness in the meeting. The worker was denied the presence of a union representative when he queried whether one should be in attendance.

The worker was told the students would be re-admitted to the school and would not be prevented from returning. There was no evidence produced by the employer that showed they had discussed or considered with the worker, any safety measures that were to be put in place.

His honour determined that the worker’s background was important to consider in this matter, including:

• him expressing he felt unsafe with those students at the school;
• his prior history of violent incidents with students;
• the lack of consultation between the school and the affected employees; and
• the denial of a union representative when the worker asked if he needed one.

These factors led to the Court’s decision that on the evidence before the Tribunal, there could be no determination that administrative action was reasonable or conducted in a reasonable manner.

It is on that basis that His Honour allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s decision of 21 August 2024 and ordered the worker’s weekly payment of worker’s compensation be reinstated with immediate effect, including reimbursement for loss of weekly payments caused by the cessation.

Get help from a worker’s compensation lawyer

If your worker’s compensation claim is disputed or rejected, or you have any other issues during the life of your claim, our worker’s compensation team in Tasmania are highly experienced in helping injured workers get all the compensation they deserve.

Contacting Hall Payne Lawyers

You can contact us by phone or email to arrange your consultation; either face-to-face at one of our offices, by telephone or by videoconference consultation.

Phone: 1800 659 114
Email: general@hallpayne.com.au

Further reading – worker’s compensation Tasmania

• WorkCover Tasmania - your plain English guide to workers' compensation
• What to do if your Tasmanian worker’s compensation claim is disputed?
• Termination of workers compensation claims Tasmania due to whole or substantial recovery