Starting point: “In the course of employment”

Under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, liability turns on whether a physical injury arises out of or in the course of employment.

The concept is interpreted broadly and is not confined to active work duties, or to periods where a formal employment contract is on foot. Instead, it extends to circumstances sufficiently connected with employment, which also captures activities incidental to employment.

The High Court Anchor: Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd [1992] HCA 21

Hatzimanolis provides the central framework. In practical terms, the High Court determined that an injury may still arise in the course of employment where:

The worker is within an overall episode of employment;

The employer has, expressly or impliedly, induced or encouraged the place the worker is at, or the activity the worker is undertaking;

The injury occurs in that setting; and

There is no gross misconduct.

Crucially, the High Court emphasised that the analysis must look at the general nature, terms and circumstances of employment, not just the immediate incident.

Host Employment: How It Fits

Host Employment typically arises where the worker has an accepted compensable injury, and the original employer is unable to provide suitable duties. The employer’s insurer would then facilitate a host placement to support rehabilitation and return to work efforts.

Notably, employers have an obligation under s143M of the Act to ensure that injured workers are given suitable alternative duties to perform. Arguably, this obligation survives any termination of employment if the employer remains liable for a compensable injury.

The legal question is whether the host placement is part of the employment continuum. In the majority of return-to-work scenarios, the answer will often be yes because:

The placement is arranged or endorsed by the employer’s insurer;

The duties of that placement are tied to the worker’s medical capacity for work; and

The worker is attending that placement because of the compensable injury.

Applying Hatzimanolis, the host placement is arguably an interval or interlude within the broader episode of employment. A worker who is placed with a host employer as part of a rehabilitation or return-to-work plan is not acting independently. Rather, the placement is typically arranged, approved or facilitated by the insurer or employer for the purposes of rehabilitation. Host employment is commonly used where the original employer cannot provide suitable duties, enabling the worker to re-engage in productive activity consistent with their medical capacity. In that sense, the worker’s presence at the host workplace, and the duties they perform there, are not incidental or voluntary in any meaningful way—they are a direct product of the compensable injury and the structured return-to-work process.

Against that backdrop, host employment can be characterised as part of an “overall episode of employment” within the meaning contemplated in Hatzimanolis. Even where the original contract of employment has been terminated, the worker’s activities during a rehabilitation placement remain connected to, and indeed arise from, the original employment. The insurer’s involvement in arranging or endorsing the placement is critical. It provides the necessary element of inducement or encouragement such that the worker’s activities fall within the course of employment.

Practical Takeaways for Employers and Insurers

Host employment scenarios are less about contractual labels and more about characterisation.

Where a worker sustains a new physical injury while undertaking host employment as part of an insurer-facilitated return-to-work program, the claim will ordinarily be made against the original employer. This is because the host duties are induced or encouraged by the employer, such that the injury may still be characterised as arising in the course of employment, notwithstanding its distinct nature.

For insurers and employers, these issues underscore the importance of careful management of return-to-work arrangements. The way in which a host placement is documented and implemented can materially affect the characterisation of any subsequent new injury. Clear evidence that the placement forms part of a rehabilitation process, and is undertaken at the direction or with the endorsement of the insurer, will support an argument that the worker remains within the course of employment. On the other hand, ambiguity in those arrangements may expose insurers to contested liability or unintended gaps in coverage.

The real question is:

Was the worker engaged in an activity induced or encouraged by the employer at the time of sustaining the physical injury, viewed in its broader context?

Where the answer is ‘yes’, Hatzimanolis provides a strong foundation for concluding that the injury arose in the course of employment, and liability is with the employer and its insurer.

The post Still on the Hook? Liability for Injuries in Host Employment appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

While the case arose in South Australia, the Court considered provisions of the Civil Liability Act that are similar to the Tasmanian legislation. As a result, the principles discussed in the case are likely to have application in the context of Tasmanian personal injury claims.

Background

The respondent was injured in a motor accident and claimed damages for personal injury. Related family business entities also claimed losses said to flow from the respondent’s reduced capacity to work.

At first instance, damages of approximately $2.2 million were awarded, including substantial sums for alleged business losses and missed commercial opportunities.

The Motor Accident Commission appealed.

The Court’s decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeal substantially reduced the damages award.

The Court confirmed that, where a business claims for the loss of an injured employee’s services (a per quod claim), damages will generally be limited to the cost of replacing that labour at the time the services were lost. Claims for broader losses, including reduced profits, lost opportunities or poor commercial performance, will usually fail unless they can be clearly and directly attributed to the loss of the employee’s services rather than to other operational, financial or strategic factors.

Claims relating to the sale of assets and the loss of future growth or appreciation were rejected because they were characterised as claims for lost commercial opportunities lying beyond the scope of liability for personal injury, rather than losses caused by the injury itself.

The Court also emphasised that compensation under the Civil Liability Act is not unlimited and must be confined by principles governing the scope of liability, even where an injury has serious and long-lasting effects. In addressing the respondent’s substance abuse, the Court found that the alleged causal connection between the accident and that conduct had not been established. The Court further held that, even if causation had been established, the scope of liability did not extend to consequences flowing from the respondent’s deliberate and illegal conduct.

An application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was later refused.

Key implications for Tasmanian claims

The decision is a useful reminder that:

· Business and company claims arising from an injured worker’s incapacity will generally be limited to the replacement cost of labour.

· Losses resulting from an individual’s own illegal or intentional conduct, such as substance abuse, may not be recoverable even where the injury is said to have contributed.

The post Recovering Business Losses After Injury: What the Latest Court Decision Means appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

From 1 July 2026, new anti‑money laundering laws will apply to many Australian law practices, including those that provide services such as property transactions, trusts, companies and certain financial or commercial work.

These changes form part of a nationwide effort to prevent serious financial crime, including fraud and money laundering.  While the new requirements affect how law practices operate behind the scenes, our focus remains the same: providing clear, practical and trusted legal advice.

Why are these changes happening?

Australia is updating its laws to align with international standards and to close gaps that criminals can exploit. Regulators have identified that certain professional services, including some legal services, can be misused for illegal activity if appropriate checks are not in place.

The new laws are designed to strengthen safeguards across the legal and financial system.

Will this affect all legal work?

No. The new requirements apply only to certain higher‑risk legal services, such as:

• buying or selling property
• setting up companies or trusts
• managing client funds
• some commercial and financial transactions

Many areas of legal work, including litigation and court‑based matters, are not affected.

What might clients notice?

For some matters, we may need to:

• request additional identification documents
• ask questions about the nature or purpose of a transaction
• carry out ongoing checks during longer‑running matters

These steps are now required by law and are similar to the checks clients may already be familiar with when dealing with banks or other financial institutions.

What are we doing to prepare?

Dobson Mitchell Allport is actively preparing for these changes by:

• reviewing our internal systems and processes
• training our staff on the new requirements
• ensuring compliance is handled efficiently and respectfully

Our aim is to make this transition as smooth as possible for our clients, with minimal disruption to your legal matters.

Need more information?

If you have questions about how these changes may affect your matter, we are happy to discuss them with you.  Please feel free to speak with your lawyer or contact our office.

The post New Anti‑Money Laundering Laws for Law Firms: What Clients Need to Know appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania has clarified the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (TASCAT) authority to extend the time for objecting to a bill of costs under the workers compensation scheme. The Court’s decision also provides important guidance regarding the scope of this power.

The Case: Walker v Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd [2026] TASSC 6

In this matter, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether TASCAT could extend a 14-day time limit stipulated in regulation 16 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Regulations 2021 (Tas). This regulation provides that, if no objection is filed within the prescribed period, a bill of costs is deemed to be admitted.

The Arguments

The worker had contended that regulation 16 was mandatory and left no room for an extension. However, TASCAT found that it possessed the power to extend the time limit under rule 11 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2021 (Tas), which allows the Tribunal to extend or abridge time limits. The worker appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Tasmania, arguing that TASCAT was wrong to decide that it had thepower to extend time.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

On appeal, Chief Justice Shanahan confirmed TASCAT’s decision. His Honour held that rule 11, made under section 115 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 (Tas), grants TASCAT a broad discretionary power to extend time limits imposed by a “relevant Act”, including the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), even if the statutory period has expired. Regulation 16 deals with steps taken within ongoing proceedings before TASCAT and therefore falls within the Tribunal’s power to extend time.

Nature of Regulation 16 and the Power to Extend

The Court confirmed that regulation 16 remains a mandatory, deeming provision as had been found in prior cases. However, this does not preclude the availability of discretionary relief in suitable cases. The power to extend time, when properly interpreted, does not compromise the efficiency of the workers compensation scheme.

Distinction Between Types of Time Limits

Addressing concerns raised by the worker about the impact of the extension power on the efficient operation of the workers compensation scheme, Chief Justice Shanahan drew an important distinction between:

• time limits governing the commencement of proceedings, and
• time limits governing acts taken in relation to existing proceedings.

It was held that rule 11 applies only to the latter category. Rule 11 does not provide TASCAT with the power to extend time limits that govern the making of compensation claims or the commencement of proceedings in TASCAT.

Significance of the Decision

This decision provides valuable guidance for parties involved in workers compensation disputes. It confirms that strict procedural time limits continue to apply but that there is scope for extensions of time in relation to certain time limits within TASCAT proceedings so that unjust outcomes can be avoided.

The post TASCAT and Time Extensions in Costs Disputes appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

The worker had been continuously certified as incapacitated since making a workers compensation claim in May 2022. He later resigned from his employment and was paid out approximately 16 weeks of accrued annual leave as a lump sum. Following this, the employer’s insurer wrote to the worker advising that he could not receive workers compensation payments and annual leave at the same time, and weekly payments were stopped. The worker applied to the Tribunal for the resumption of weekly payments.

Both parties relied on an earlier decision of the former Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal, commonly referred to as the Ausdoc case. In that decision, the Chief Commissioner determined that a lump sum payment of annual leave could be set off against a worker’s entitlement to weekly payments.

In this case, the employer relied on section 84(2) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas) as the basis for suspending payments. Relevantly, that section provides that a worker is not entitled to weekly compensation payments while taking annual recreational leave or long service leave during a period of incapacity, where that leave is taken in accordance with section 84(1)(b).

Section 84(1)(b) allows a worker and employer, by agreement, to take annual leave during a period of incapacity for which workers compensation is payable. The key issue for the Tribunal was whether the worker had “taken” annual leave in accordance with that provision.

The Tribunal found that he had not. It held that the worker was no longer an employee at the time the annual leave was paid out and, as a result, could not have taken annual leave by agreement with the employer for the purposes of section 84(1)(b). The Tribunal drew a clear distinction between taking annual leave during employment and the payment of accrued leave as a lump sum on termination. Only the former has the effect of suspending an entitlement to weekly compensation payments.

The Tribunal therefore ordered that the worker’s weekly payments be resumed.

The Tribunal’s decision highlights a clear distinction between taking annual leave during employment and the payment of accrued leave on termination, with only the former capable of affecting a worker’s entitlement to weekly compensation payments.

The post Annual Leave Payouts and Weekly Workers’ Compensation appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.