In my post ‘What a difference a day [or three days] makes…’ (June 3, 2025) I reported on the case of State of Tasmania (Department of Health) Ambulance Tasmania v SGC [2025] TASCAT 111.  The issue was on what date was the ambulance service notified of SGC’s claim for compensation. If it was when he submitted an unsigned claim form then they had until 10 February 2025 to dispute liability. If it was when he submitted the signed form they had until 13 February.  Ambulance Tasmania acted on 13 February but the Tribunal ruled that the relevant date for action was 10 February. As the ambulance service acted out of time, TASCAT ruled that it had no power to rule on any dispute and by inference Ambulance Tasmania was deemed to have accepted liability for SGC’s injuries.

The employee, SGC, contacted me on 22 May and said:

Understandably, the State appealed the decision of TASCAT that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the employer’s reasonably arguable case to deny liability in my Workers Compensation S81A referral. 

The case was heard in the Supreme Court this week, and the appeal was this morning dismissed.

The decision of Estcourt J in the Tasmanian Supreme Court is State of Tasmania v Burgess [2026] TASSC 22. His Honour agreed that the relevant Act required that a claim for compensation be on the prescribed form (which it was) but that the section did not require ‘substantial compliance’. The respondent, Burgess, argued and His Honour agreed that 

It is not disputed by the Appellant that the claim form completed by the Respondent and provided to the employer (I e the ‘claim for compensation’) on 18 October 2024 was in the correct form, in that the form used (although incomplete) was the same form available on the Worksafe website and approved by the Board on 1 February 2024. Thus, the claim for compensation was made by the Respondent in the “form approved by the Board.

The fact that it was not signed did not mean the application was not on the proper form ([19]-[20]).

Section 34(3) of the Act provides that an error or omission on the claim form does not disentitle the applicant unless ‘the defect, omission, or irregularity relates to information which is not within the knowledge of, or reasonably ascertainable by the Appellant’ ([30]).  The failure to sign the form was a relevant omission. The appellant argued that it related to information only known to the applicant that is whether he understood and acknowledged that it was an offence to make a false claim.  The court said that the information was ‘reasonably ascertainable’ by the appellant. What was missing was an acknowledgement that the applicant/respondent was aware ‘of the existence and effect of s 153 of the Act’ ([37]). Given the absence of a signature the appellant could have, and did ask for, and did receive, a signed form.  His Honour said (at [38]):

That was such a simple step that it cannot possibly be regarded as so outside the appellant’s power as to affect the validity of the respondent’s claim. It is no platitude to say that the Act is beneficial legislation. The purpose of s 34(3) is to validate an irregular claim…

His Honour confirmed that ‘the respondent’s claim is to be taken as having been made on the day he gave the unsigned claim form and medical certificate to his employer, namely, 18 October 2024, and thus the employer failed to refer the dispute to the Tribunal or give notice of the dispute to the worker within the 84 days permitted by s 81A(1) of the Act’.

I bet Ambulance Tasmania won’t make that mistake again.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.