The proceedings on the referral dated 23 December 2025 filed by the worker in the Tribunal pursuant to s 77 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tribunal reference W/2025/2001) are to be transferred to the Magistrates Court.

Workers compensation - Federal diversity - Matters between a State and a resident of another State - transfer to Magistrates Court.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988; s 77

Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020; s 131

The State of Tasmania (Department of Health) v DKQ; DKQ v The State of Tasmania (Department of Health) [2025] TASCAT 228;

DHT v The State of Tasmania (Department of Education, Children and Young People) [2024] TASCAT 153;

Palmer v Ayers; Ferguson Ayers [2017] HCA 5

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. The worker made a claim for workers compensation in 2022 in relation to a mental health injury that occurred when she was accosted by an agitated man who was experiencing a drug induced psychosis.
2. The claim for workers compensation was accepted on the basis that the incident occurred in the course of the worker's employment, and it was accepted that she had suffered a post traumatic stress disorder condition.
3. On 23 December 2025 the worker referred her claim for compensation to the Tribunal for determination of the necessity of her admission to a mental health clinic and payment of future medical expenses in accordance with the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the WRC Act).
4. The Tribunal commenced the preliminary stage of the conciliation process in accordance with the WRC Act, and in the course of a telephone conference an issue arose as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the worker's s 77 referral. It is agreed that the worker lives in South Australia, and is therefore not a resident of the State of Tasmania.
5. The worker's s 77 referral has been referred to me to consider whether proceedings ought to be transferred to the Magistrates Court, on the basis that the matters in contention between the parties are matters between the State of Tasmania and a resident of a different State. Neither party wished to be heard on the issue, and the parties were content for a decision to be made on the papers on the Tribunal file.

1. Although the worker was an employee of the State of Tasmania (Department of Education, Children & Young People) at the time she was injured, the referral that has now been filed in the Tribunal on behalf of the worker gives her address in South Australia.
2. As well as a copy of the claim for compensation and workers compensation medical certificates covering the period from 9 June 2022 until the end of November 2023, the referral was supported by several items of correspondence from Dr Van den Bos, Psychiatrist, to Dr Daniels, the worker's treating general practitioner. The correspondence from Dr Van de Bos to Dr Daniels is dated 6 July 2025, 30 September 2025 and 18 October 2025. Copies of correspondence from Dr Van de Bos to the employer's fund manager dated 9 September 2025 and 30 September 2025 were also filed in support of the s 77 referral.
3. Files notes from the Tribunal's Senior Case Officer who facilitated a teleconference on 10 February 2026 record the employer's representative raising the issue that the worker appeared (on the face of the referral documentation) to reside in South Australia. The worker's solicitor confirmed that to be the case.

1. As I said in The State of Tasmania (Department of Health) v DKQ; DKQ v The State of Tasmania (Department of Health) [2025] TASCAT 228 at [9], s 75(iv) of the Constitution provides that the High Court of Australia has original jurisdiction in all matters 'between a State and a resident of another State'. State parliaments do not have the power to confer upon a State tribunal the jurisdiction to determine matters under s 75 of the Constitution. Only courts may be vested with that jurisdiction; see Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15.
2. Although this Tribunal is not a court of the State of Tasmania it exercises judicial power in determining referrals under the WRC Act: see DHT v The State of Tasmania (Department of Education, Children and Young People) [2024] TASCAT 153. The dispute between the parties upon the worker's s 77 referral as to the reasonable necessity of the worker's admission to a mental health clinic, and the liability of the employer in relation to future medical expenses are both justiciable controversies, and 'matters' within the meaning of s 75 of the Constitution: see Palmer v Ayers; Ferguson Ayers [2017] HCA 5 at [26-27].
3. I find that the State of Tasmania, as the employer of the worker, is a party to the worker's s 77 referral, the referral is in relation to 'matters' for the purposes of s 75(iv) of the Constitution, the justiciable issues constituting the matters between the parties arose when the referral was filed with the Tribunal, and at the date of filing the worker was a resident of another State. On that basis the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the worker's s 77 referral.

1. Section 131 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 (the TASCAT Act) gives the Tribunal the discretion to transfer federal diversity proceedings to the Magistrates Court:

(1) If a person has standing to make an application to the Tribunal in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under section 72 or its review jurisdiction under section 74 , the application may, if the Tribunal orders under subsection (2) that proceedings on the application are to be transferred to the Magistrates Court, be determined by the Magistrates Court in accordance with this Part instead of the Tribunal. > > (2) If, following an application made to the Tribunal in the manner and form required under this Act for the kind of application concerned, the Tribunal considers that - > > (a) it does not have, or there is some doubt as to whether it has, jurisdiction to determine the application because its determination may involve the exercise of federal jurisdiction; and > > (b) the Tribunal would otherwise have had jurisdiction enabling it to determine the application - > > the Tribunal may order that proceedings on the application be transferred to the Magistrates Court.

2. The worker has standing to make her s 77 referral to the Tribunal under the WRC Act. The Tribunal would otherwise have jurisdiction to determine the referral, but in the present circumstance does not have jurisdiction to do so because a determination would involve the exercise of federal jurisdiction.
3. It is appropriate for the proceedings comprising the worker's s 77 referral to be transferred to the Magistrates Court for determination.
4. Accordingly, I make the following order:
   • The proceedings on the referral dated 23 December 2025 filed by the worker in the Tribunal pursuant to s 77 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tribunal reference W/2025/2001) are to be transferred to the Magistrates Court.
5. I further direct that the Tribunal's file is to be forwarded to the Hobart Registry of the Magistrates Court with an order in these terms and a copy of these reasons.