Bid to re-run a workers compensation hearing missed by the worker is dismissed (TASCAT, 2026)

What happened

In May 2024 a worker made a claim for workers compensation, saying he had back pain and groin pain from his work and that the injury happened on 13 May 2024. The claim was accepted and he was paid compensation under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. In November 2025 he gave his employer a medical certificate covering incapacity until 18 December 2025. In March 2026 he gave the employer a further certificate dated 12 February 2026.

When the employer, Tassal Operations Pty Ltd, received that later certificate, it used a provision of the Act (section 69(13)) that let it treat the certificate as a fresh claim, which in turn triggered section 81A. Section 81A is the pathway an employer uses to ask the tribunal to decide whether a claim is reasonably arguable, and orders made under it stop the worker's weekly payments and medical expenses straight away. The employer filed its section 81A referral on 9 April 2026. The tribunal sent a notice of hearing for 29 April 2026 to both the employer and the worker. The notice went to the worker by post at the address on his claim form; it was dated 15 April 2026.

On 22 April 2026 the worker's solicitors filed a notice of appearance and asked the tribunal to send them a copy of the section 81A hearing notice if one had been listed. They did not hear back. When the hearing came on at 10am on 29 April 2026 neither the worker nor his solicitors appeared. The tribunal went ahead without them, decided it had power to hear the referral, found a reasonably arguable case existed and made the usual section 81A orders.

On 6 May 2026 the worker's solicitors emailed the tribunal asking for the referral to be re-heard. A directions hearing was held on 20 May 2026 and the re-hearing application was heard on 2 June 2026, with both sides represented by counsel. The worker's solicitor filed a statement saying the firm never received the hearing notice or any phone call on the hearing day, that the worker has significant difficulty with English, and that the worker had told him on 22 April that he had not received a hearing notice.

What each side wanted

The worker asked for an order that the employer's section 81A referral be re-heard on a date to be fixed, saying he only wanted to argue that the tribunal had no power to hear the referral at all, and that a re-hearing would let him test the employer's evidence about the alleged gap in medical certification and about a rehabilitation provider's role. He argued that section 57(1) requires a party to have a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and that this matters even more where section 81A orders immediately end payments. The employer argued first that the tribunal had no power to deal with the application, because it was made by email rather than on the form approved under section 42(2) and the seven-day time limit in section 57(2)(b) had since passed; and second that, even if it could be heard, the worker had no reasonable explanation for missing the hearing and had put forward nothing at all to show a different result was reasonably arguable.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal rejected the employer's argument about its own power to act. It accepted the worker's 6 May 2026 email as a valid application under section 57, and found the application was made inside the seven-day limit in section 57(2)(b).

On the substance, the tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to order a re-hearing. The order made on 29 April 2026 under section 81A stays in place. The order recorded was: "The worker's application pursuant to s 57(2) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 is dismissed."

The tribunal also set a timetable for costs. If either party wants to apply for costs, it must do so by written submissions to both the tribunal and the other party within 21 days. The party receiving the application has 21 days to respond, and each party then has a further 7 days to reply to any costs submissions if it chooses.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

On the question of power to act, the tribunal pointed to a rule neither side had raised: rule 15(2) of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2021, which lets the tribunal accept an application for lodgement even though it is not in the approved form. The email set out the exact section relied on and gave enough detail that the employer could be in no doubt what the application was about. Accepting it also fitted the tribunal's main objectives in section 10 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020, which include resolving matters quickly while reaching a just outcome, keeping costs down, using straightforward language and procedures, and acting with as little formality and technicality as possible.

Both sides agreed the test for a re-hearing, drawn from earlier tribunal decisions, has two parts: why the party was not available for the hearing, and whether it is at least arguable that a different outcome may result. The tribunal was not satisfied with the explanation for the absence. The employer's solicitors had emailed the worker's solicitors on 16 April 2026 attaching a draft consent order that carried the 29 April 2026 date. The tribunal did not accept that calling it a "proposed hearing" left the date unclear, and found the worker's solicitors had ample time to ask the tribunal whether 29 April was in fact the listed date, especially after hearing nothing following their 22 April email. No contact was made with the tribunal until after the hearing had finished.

The tribunal then said that even if it was wrong about the explanation, the worker had not shown it was just and reasonable to re-hear the matter. By the time the re-hearing application was lodged on 6 May 2026, the worker had all the material the employer relied on for its section 69(13) argument, and he also had the recording of the 29 April hearing before the directions conference on 20 May. Despite that, he put forward no detailed challenge to the employer's witness evidence and nothing to distinguish or answer the Supreme Court decision the employer relied on. He said only that he wanted the chance to scrutinise and challenge the evidence, without giving any basis for the challenge. A mere desire to challenge something in an unspecified way did not help the tribunal decide whether a second hearing might reach a different result.

What this means if you are in a similar position

This decision shows how a tribunal treats a request to re-run a hearing that went ahead without you. The form of the request mattered less than its substance: an email was accepted as a valid application because it named the provision relied on and explained the grounds clearly, and because the tribunal's governing Act tells it to avoid unnecessary formality. If you are in a similar position, that is a reminder that a clear written document can count even when it is not on the official form, while the time limit for making the request is treated strictly.

The decision also shows that two separate things have to be established, not one. Explaining why you were absent is only the first half. The tribunal here was not persuaded on that half, because a date had already reached the worker's side in another party's correspondence and no one followed it up with the tribunal. On the second half, saying you want the chance to test the other side's evidence was not enough: the tribunal expected to be shown, with some specifics, what the challenge would actually be and why it might change the result, particularly where the material and a recording of the first hearing were already in hand.

More generally, this is an area where decisions can stop payments the moment they are made, so dates and notices carry real weight. If you are in a similar position, the step most people take first is a clear written notice or dispute letter to the employer, insurer or decision-maker setting out what they say is wrong and what they want reviewed, and only then an application to the tribunal if the written stage does not resolve it.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a TASCAT application. More decisions: TASCAT cases and employment and wages.

Source: Tassal Operations Pty Ltd v USL [2026] TASCAT 85 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.