1. As noted at [4] above, after the hearing of the appeals, the appellant sent a number of emails to the Supreme Court for our attention and these have been considered. Amongst these emails was a copy of a Supreme Court record of court proceedings before Acting Justice Porter on 18 June 2024 with respect to an application brought by the appellant for a subpoena to issue to the Office of the Health Complaints Commissioner, and also for one to issue to Dr R Doolabh of I-Med Radiology.
2. The record of the order made by his Honour is as follows:

"That the application on matter number 323/2024 dated 15 May 2024 is to be filed and brought to the attention of those Judges constituting the Full Court."

It transpired that the interlocutory application dated 15 May 2024 was filed but not brought to the Court's attention, as ordered.

1. At the time that order came to light, this Court's judgment was pending and to be delivered on 9 September 2024. As a consequence of the Court becoming aware of the order, the judgment was not delivered and instead, at the listing on 9 September, the Court thanked the appellant for drawing attention to the order and directions were made that the parties provide written submissions with respect to the application dated 15 May 2024.
2. The appellant was granted 14 days to file written submissions regarding the basis for his interlocutory application and the reasons why he says the order should be made. The respondent was granted seven days to file written submissions in response. It was noted that if any other orders of a judge of this court had been made requiring outstanding applications of the appellant to be heard by this Court, they would be considered if brought to the Court's attention, and the Court would allow the same timeframe to file written submissions with respect to any such application or applications.
3. Subsequently, counsel for the respondent drew the Court's attention to an interlocutory order made by Justice Brett on 18 June 2024 in relation to two applications on two files: 3486/2023 and 2640/2023. The applications were for the provision of reasons from Justice Estcourt and Justice Pearce, respectively. The interlocutory order made by Justice Brett was that: "leave is granted for the applications to be filed and referred to the Full Court in each matter respectively and each be treated as an application for a statement of reasons." In fact, both applications had been filed on 27 May 2024.
4. Evidently, a decision of Justice Estcourt on 3486/2023 has been appealed. The order made by Brett J was for the application with respect to that decision to be listed before the Full Court hearing the appeal from the corresponding decision. The appeal is not before us and indeed, we would not have permitted the appeal to be listed before the Court, constituted as it is. There is no need for this Court to make an order referring the application to the Full Court hearing that appeal as the Registrar is bound to give effect to the interlocutory order of Justice Brett.
5. The decision of Justice Pearce on 2640/2022 has been appealed and the appeal is before us. In accordance with the order of Brett J, the application for reasons to be provided should be determined by us. It should be noted that there is an administrative process for the Full Court to be alerted to, and informed about, a point or question referred to the Full Court hearing an appeal: r 692(3) Supreme Court Rules. Unfortunately, that was not followed in this case. Now that we are aware of the application, it shall be considered in connection with the appeal from the decision of Pearce J.
6. We return then to the interlocutory application dated 15 May 2024 for the issue of subpoenas to be heard at the time of the hearing of the appeal to the Full Court, which is file 323/2024. The Court has a copy of the appellant's interlocutory application on that appeal file and an attached subpoena to produce documents or things to the Office of the Health Complaints Commissioner requiring the production of:

"The full response I-Med Radiology provided the OHCC that I-Med would not authorise the release of pertaining to a Complaint as per an email from Senior Investigation Officer Andrew Muthy dated 27 June 2022.

1. A second subpoena also attached is addressed to Dr R Doolabh of I-Med Radiology. The Schedule of documents provides that Dr Doolabh produce:

"A copy of a Report you done on the 06/09/2021 regarding a Bilateral Shoulder MRI Scan, re the accompanying Receipt."

It is clear that the subpoenas are sought for the purpose of this appeal and the application should be considered by this Court, in accordance with the order of Porter AJ.

1. In relation to the application for subpoenas to issue, the appellant filed written submissions by email after the listing on 9 September, including submissions made in an affidavit sworn 17 September 2024, and these have been considered. In the affidavit, the appellant makes the point that the subpoena applications have been filed by him pursuant to r 495(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, and therefore the determination should be made in Chambers and not in Court. The interlocutory application is in terms of a "request to have Subpoenas issued pursuant to r 495 of the Supreme Court Rules". Presumably, the Registrar of the Court referred the request to a judge for directions pursuant to r 495(5).
2. Allowing that was the case, a judge has power to refer the application to the Full Court pursuant to r 692(1). The rule states that a judge may refer an appeal, or any point or question arising in an appeal, for determination by the Full Court. Presumably, Porter AJ referred the application to issue subpoenas as a point or question arising in the appeal for determination by this Court. An order pursuant to r 692(1) can be made regardless of whether the application was made to a judge to be heard in Chambers or in Court. Again, unfortunately, the process for the Full Court to be alerted to and informed about a point or question referred to the Full Court hearing an appeal pursuant to r 692(3), was not followed in this case.
3. On 14 October 2024, the appellant sought to file by email a bundle of documents on file 323/2024, which was declined by the Registrar. It is described as: "A simple Folder put together to ideally act as an Appeal to this Full Court to have resolved amicably these what can only be seen as illegal Proceedings occurring in the Supreme Court for what can only be seen as Very Unacceptable Reasons." The appellant seems to be relying on the bundle as a type of "appeal book" for these proceedings, "in an attempt to simplify Matters regarding the above Case# [323/2024]" rather than as submissions, although submissions are included in the documents. While these documents have not been accepted for filing, and fall outside the timeframe allowed for written submissions, they have been read to ensure there is nothing that might advance the appellant's case on the appeals before us such that the bundle of documents should be formally before this Court. There is not.
4. The appellant's submissions that the subpoenas should be issued include the proposition that the two subpoenas "would have realised my Legitimacy but more so the Allegations made against certain Personnel that are responsible for the tampering of my Medical Information that ultimately led to the Dismissal of the Appeal at the Tribunal Level ...". The appellant's position is that the subpoenas should issue to enable him to establish his allegation of a radiology report having been fabricated.
5. The argument for the respondent is that:

"The Appellant failed to appear at the hearing of the matter in the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal on 21 September 2021 or obtain the documents sought on subpoena at the hearing. Pursuant to s 48(3) of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 such evidence:

'... shall be admitted only by special leave of the Full Court, which shall only be granted in cases in which -

(a) the evidence was not in the possession of the party seeking to have it admitted, and could not by proper diligence have been obtained by him, before the termination of the trial; or

(b) there is some other special circumstance which, in the opinion of the Full Court, justifies the admission of it'.

1. If the Full Court does not give special leave to admit the evidence sought to be obtained by subpoena, then it cannot be taken into account on the appeal. As noted by the respondent, a critical question is whether the evidence could, by proper diligence, have been obtained by the appellant before the termination of the trial.
2. The respondent's argument should succeed. In view of the circumstances, the threshold for the granting of special leave by this Court would not be met. The material circumstances involve the following. The appellant did not appear at the hearing before the Tribunal and the medical evidence relied upon by the employer was unchallenged. Written submissions were filed on behalf of the employer after the hearing and a copy sent to the appellant to give him an opportunity to respond. The appellant responded in writing and according to the decision, he made submissions that the "medical evidence relied upon by the employer was wrong, and that the worker's conclusion about the appropriate diagnosis of his condition, based on his radiological investigations and the Scholarly Articles that he provided to the Tribunal, was correct": F v George Town Seafoods Pty Ltd [2021] TASCAT 1 at [36]. The Tribunal accepted the employer's medical evidence in its entirety and found against the appellant: at [42].
3. There is nothing to suggest that the evidence now sought to be obtained by subpoena could not, by proper diligence, have been obtained by subpoena at the time of the Tribunal hearing.
4. The fact that the appellant did not participate at the hearing, did not contest the employer's evidence, and did not seek to issue the subpoenas at that time, warrants the dismissal of the applications to have the subpoenas issued. There is no valid justification for the admission of fresh evidence on the appeal. The appellant had the opportunity to produce his own evidence before the Tribunal, and indeed, an indulgence was extended to him and some material received from him, notwithstanding the late stage of the hearing. The time to produce the evidence he relied upon for his case was at the hearing; that was the forum to agitate the issues at stake, and there was ample opportunity for him to pursue the issuing of subpoenas at that time. The application for the subpoenas to issue should be dismissed. To the extent that it is necessary, we direct the Registrar that the subpoenas are not to be issued.
5. As noted, in a second interlocutory application, the appellant applied for an order that Pearce J provide a statement of reasons with respect to his decisions under appeal. However, oral reasons for the decisions were given, and the appellant has the transcript of those reasons. While the reasons are succinct, brevity was appropriate given the circumstances; particularly, that the appellant did not make submissions against an order dismissing the applications, and did not attend the hearing. The reasons are perfectly adequate, revealing the basis upon which Pearce J concluded that an extension for time should not be granted and the application for a review of the Tribunal's decision should be dismissed. The reasons given by Pearce J for his decision that he should not recuse himself, were also adequate given the spurious nature of the application that he should do so. The reasons provided complied with his Honour's obligation to provide sufficient reasons.
6. For these reasons, we dismiss both interlocutory applications.