The worker then tried to give the builder the documents at a meeting that was organised by a mutual colleague, but the builder again refused to take them.
The builder told the Tribunal he didn’t become aware of the worker’s injury until he received a doctor’s invoice in the mail at the end of July, and said he was never offered any documents. The Tribunal rejected the claim that the employer wasn’t aware until this time.
He denied liability for the worker’s condition, arguing he hadn’t been notified of the injury as soon as practicable, as required by s32(1)(a) of the State Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
But Commissioner Rodney Chandler found the worker did give the builder notice as soon as practicable in voicing his pain on the day the incident occurred.
He said he was satisfied the worker attempted to serve the documents to the builder on two occasions, and the builder refused to accept them.
“I have come to the view that where there is a conflict between the evidence of the worker on the one hand and the employer on the other, it is the evidence of the former which should be preferred.”
Commissioner Chandler remitted the matter to the registrar to continue the conciliation process.
H. v Hafez Abdul Razzek Hafez (Ref No. 796/2012)  TASWRCT 1 (9 January 2013)