The operation of section 69(13)

In this edition, we look at three recent decisions which clarify the operation of section 69(13), confirming who needs to give and receive the subsequent certificate, and confirming that the subsequent certificate (for section 69(13)) does not need to certify a period of incapacity.

Dale v Cigarette & Gift Warehouse (Franchising) Pty Ltd [2026] TASSC 5




The first decision is from the Supreme Court (Court).

In Dale v Cigarette & Gift Warehouse (Franchising) Pty Ltd [2026] TASSC 5 (5 March 2026), the Court clarified how section 69(13) is meant to operate.

The law

Section 69(13) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Act) allows employers (or their insurers) to rely on a gap in certification to refer the question of liability to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) to seek a suspension of the obligation to make compensation payments.

A gap in certification exists when one certificate expires and the subsequent certificate is provided more than 14 days later. Needless to say, a certificate can only expire if it has a defined or specified period of incapacity i.e., the certified period of incapacity has a start date and an end date.

One of the key issues was that the Court had to decide who could provide and receive such certificates.

What happens in practice?

Section 69(13) of the Act requires a worker to give workers compensation medical certificates to their employer. In some cases, the worker gives those certificates to a third party e.g., the employer’s insurer. Sometimes, the workplace rehabilitation provider, who attended the medical review where a workers compensation certificate was issued, forwards the certificate(s) on the worker’s behalf to the employer.

So, it is not uncommon to see certificates being sent and received by parties other than the worker and their employer.

The Court has confirmed that the ‘provision’ and ‘receipt’ elements of section 69(13) must be met before the employer or its insurer can rely on a gap in certification to seek a suspension of compensation. These elements are only met when those actions are taken by the worker and the employer. Therefore, the Court said that if a non-party (e.g., the rehabilitation provider or the insurer) wishes to provide certificates or receive certificates on behalf of the worker/employer, it must be by agreement of all parties.

The Court said at paragraph 55:

“If there is to be any movement away from the obvious requirements of the section, it must be with the clear and unambiguous authorisation and agreement of all parties. That is, the worker must expressly authorise a third party to provide the certificates to the employer on his/her/their behalf and the employer must specifically authorise the third party to receive the certificates on its behalf, or at the very least, agree that it will receive the certificates from the third party rather than directly from the worker.”

The key takeaways

First, employers and insurers are reminded that it is the worker’s obligation to provide workers compensation medical certificates. It follows that the worker’s general practitioner or the workplace rehabilitation provider should not act as the ‘postman’ for delivering certificates.

Second, if employers and insurers seek to rely on section 69(13), then before the gap in certification is established, the provision and receipt elements must be met.

1. This means that the party giving the certificate must either be the worker or someone authorised to do so, and in the case of the latter, all parties must have agreed for that to happen.
2. This also means that the party receiving the certificate must either be the employer or someone authorised to do so, and again, in the case of the latter, all parties must have agreed for that to happen.

Finally, from a case management perspective, it might be best to leave the obligations to give / receive certificates to workers and employers, as issues like authorisation or agreement can come into dispute easily if circumstances change e.g., there is a change in service provider.


Baptcare Ltd v BU [2026] TASCAT 27




The second decision is from the Tribunal.

This case is notable because it is the first Tribunal case applying the Court’s decision discussed above.

The Tribunal’s decision confirms that the Tribunal will apply the Court’s judgment on how the preliminary requirements of section 69(13) are met.

As noted in this case, “Nowhere in the Act is it indicated that medical certificates are to be provided to anyone other than the employer.”.

Ms Linton acted for the employer’s insurer in this case. Given the complexity of the issues, Ms Linton had to attend four hearings and was ultimately successful in her application and successfully argued the case for our client.


Lady Gowrie Tasmania Inc. v DD [2026] TASCAT 26




The third decision is also from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has also clarified what a ‘subsequent certificate’ is, for the purpose of section 69(13) in Lady Gowrie Tasmania Inc. v DD [2026] TASCAT 26.

The law

As mentioned above, section 69(13) requires that “…the worker provides a further certificate more than 14 days after the expiration of that specified period, the employer, on receipt of the subsequent certificate, may treat that certificate as a claim for compensation to which section 81A applies.”.

The issue before the Tribunal

The question for the Tribunal to determine, was whether it had jurisdiction under section 81A, using section 69(13), where there was no period of incapacity specified in the ‘subsequent’ medical certificate delivered by the worker to the employer.

The relevant facts

The worker made a claim for compensation on or about 24 September 2024 for ‘back pain around spine areas and the neck’ following events where a child jumped on his back and caused pain to his back.

The claim was supported by an initial workers compensation certificate of capacity dated 23 September 2024.

The worker served a certificate of capacity on or about 21 October 2024. In that certificate he was certified as having capacity for pre-injury work from 21 October 2024 to 4 November 2024.

Between 5 December 2024 and 22 August 2025, the worker was certified as being fit for pre-injury work but requiring further treatment.

On 11 November 2025, the worker was certified as fit for pre-injury work but requiring further treatment.

The employer took the certificate dated 11 November 2025 to be a new claim for compensation pursuant to section 69(13) of the Act and filed a section 81A referral.

The findings

The Tribunal found that section 69(13) does not require the further certificate to certify a period of incapacity.

The Tribunal accepted the employer’s submissions that:

• the meaning of section 69(13) is to be determined according to the ordinary and grammatical meaning of the text;
• there is not a requirement that the ‘further certificate’ certifies a period of incapacity;
• there is not a requirement that the further certificate needs to be a medical certificate provided under section 69;
• the meaning of ‘certificate’ is not defined in the Act, nor is ‘further certificate’ or ‘subsequent certificate’; and
• giving the word ‘certificate’ its ordinary meaning in the context of the Act, it must simply be a document in a form approved by the Board. This is consistent with the requirements of section 34(1)(b), which does not require the worker’s capacity needs to be the subject of certification for certificate to be deemed valid.

Ms Di Carlo acted for the employer’s insurer in this case and her submissions on the statutory constructions were accepted by the Tribunal.

The key takeaways

First, the plain wording of section 69(13) does not require that the ‘subsequent certificate’ received by the employer must certify the existence of a period of incapacity before the employer can proceed with a dispute under section 81A.

Second, section 69(13) has the effect of allowing an employer to treat a medical certificate, provided after a gap in certification, as something which it is not.

Third, on receipt of a subsequent certificate, regardless of whether there is a certification as to total incapacity, partial incapacity, or capacity for work, the employer may file a section 81A referral by virtue of section 69(13).