In THN v Dark Lab Pty Ltd [2025] TASCAT 138, the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) dismissed a worker’s application for interim weekly payments, providing important clarification on the legal test under section 60A of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

Key Takeaways

• The Tribunal reaffirmed the conventional legal test for interim orders: applicants must show a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours granting the order.
• Evidence of financial hardship is not strictly required, but it remains a central consideration in assessing the balance of convenience. In this case, the worker did not allege hardship or provide sufficient financial details, which weighed against her application.
• The Tribunal rejected arguments for a simplified “interests of justice” test, confirming that the conventional approach aligns with both the legislative framework and broader legal principles governing interim relief.

Why This Matters

This ruling provides clarity for employers, insurers and workers in the context of applications for interim orders pursuant to section 60A. It confirms that the Tribunal will continue to apply the conventional approach that it has done for more than 20 years.