The following proceedings are to be transferred to the Magistrates Court:

• Proceedings on the referral dated 11 November 2025 filed by the employer in the Tribunal pursuant to s 88 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tribunal reference W/2025/1711).
• Proceedings on the referral dated 19 November 2025 filed by worker in the Tribunal pursuant to s 86(4) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tribunal reference W/2025/1766)

Workers Compensation - Separate referrals to Tribunal by employer and worker - Federal diversity - Transfer to Magistrates Court

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988; ss 86(1)(c), 88, 86(4);

Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020; ss 131;

Commonwealth Constitution; s 75(iv).

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

Palmer v Ayers; Ferguson v Ayers [2017] HCA 5.

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. This decision arises in the context of a claim for workers compensation that was made by the worker DKQ in August 2024. The claim was for an adjustment disorder which was said to have been substantially caused by the worker's employment with the Department of Health, which is a government department of the State of Tasmania.
2. The claim was accepted by the State as employer, and payments of compensation were made to the worker in respect of her claim.
3. In November 2025, pursuant to s 86(1)(c) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the WRC Act) the employer served on the worker a certificate dated 15 October 2025, certifying that the worker had wholly or substantially recovered from the effects of the work injury in respect of which the worker's claim for compensation had been made.
4. At about the same time as the worker was served with the s 86(1)(c) certificate the employer filed in the Tribunal a referral pursuant to s 88 of the WRC Act, seeking a determination that the weekly payments payable to the worker be reduced to zero, or to such amount that the Tribunal determined appropriate.
5. On 19 November 2025 the worker, pursuant to s 86(4) of the WRC Act, referred to the Tribunal a dispute in relation to the termination or reduction of her weekly payments of compensation.
6. The parties agree that the s 88, and s 86(4) referrals should be transferred to the Magistrates Court on the basis that the matters in contention between the parties in the respective proceedings are matters between the State of Tasmania and a resident of a different State.

1. The following matters were put forward by the worker:
   • The worker left Tasmania and moved to South Australia in June 2024.
   • Prior to leaving Tasmania to move to South Australia the worker had lived in Tasmania for four years.
   • The purpose of the move from Tasmania to South Australia was based on advice from the worker's general practitioner who told her that she should be close to family supports given the impact of the developing work situation at the time. The worker's family support is in South Australia.
   • Initially the move was only intended to be temporary, but with no set return date. However, at the present time the worker is considering staying in South Australia for at least the time that she is incapacitated for work as she requires continued family support.
   • The worker has no intention to move back to Tasmania any time soon.
2. The employer agrees that the worker was a resident of South Australia at the time of the filing of both the employer's s 88 referral on 11 November 2025, and the worker's responding s 86(4) referral on 19 November 2025.

1. Section 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 jurisdiction to determine matters under s 75 of the Constitution upon a State tribunal. Only courts may be vested with that jurisdiction: see Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15.
2. This Tribunal is not a court of the State of Tasmania, but it exercises judicial power in determining referrals under the WRC Act: see DHT v The State of Tasmania (Department for Education, Children and Young People) [2024] TASCAT 153. The disputes between the parties in the employer's s88 referral and the worker's s 86(4) referral are justiciable controversies, and 'matters' within the meaning of s 75 of the Constitution: see Palmer v Ayers; Ferguson v 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 referrals, the referrals are 'matters' for the purposes of s 75(4) of the Constitution, the justiciable issues constituting the matters between the parties arose when the referrals were each filed with the Tribunal, and at the date of respective filing the worker was a resident of another State. On that basis the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the referrals.

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. Both the worker and employer have standing to make their respective referrals to the Tribunal under the WRC Act. Although the Tribunal would otherwise have jurisdiction to determine the referrals, because a determination would involve the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it does not have jurisdiction to determine the referrals.
3. It is appropriate for the proceedings to be transferred to the Magistrates Court as requested by the parties.
4. Accordingly, I make the following order:

The following proceedings are to be transferred to the Magistrates Court:

• Proceedings on the referral dated 11 November 2025 filed by the employer in the Tribunal pursuant to s 88 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tribunal reference W/2025/1711).
• Proceedings on the referral dated 19 November 2025 filed by worker in the Tribunal pursuant to s 86(4) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tribunal reference W/2025/1766).

• The Tribunal's files are to be forwarded to the Hobart Registry of the Magistrates Court with an order in these terms and a copy of these reasons for determination.