A Top Class Turf Pty Ltd v Parfitt - [2018] QCA 127

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

A Top Class Turf Pty Ltd v Parfitt [2018] QCA 127

PARTIES:

A TOP CLASS TURF PTY LTD
ACN 108 471 049
(applicant)
v
MICHAEL DANIEL PARFITT
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6553 of 2017
DC No 1914 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 2 June 2017 (Koppenol DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

19 June 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2017

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Brown J

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST EMPLOYER – TIME FOR INSTITUTING ACTION FOR DAMAGES – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal orders of the District Court granting leave to the respondent to proceed under s 298 of the Workers’ Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) – where WorkCover Queensland is the insurer of the applicant – where the respondent applied to WorkCover for statutory workers’ compensation out of time – where WorkCover rejected the application – where the applicant submits that the respondent is precluded from seeking damages under s 237 of the Act on the basis that the application was rejected on its merits – where the respondent submits that the application for compensation was made out of time and that there was no application made under s 131 and s 132 of the Act – whether the application for compensation was rejected by WorkCover after a consideration of its merits – whether the case of Jacobs v Woolworths Limited was distinguishable or wrongly decided – whether s 132A of the Act applied – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 131(1), s 131(5), s 132, s 132A, s 134, s 179, s 237, s 275, s 276, s 298, s 302(1)

Charlton v WorkCover Queensland [2007] 2 Qd R 421; [2006] QCA 498, cited
Jacobs v Woolworths Limited [2010] 2 Qd R 400; [2010] QSC 24, considered
Kelly v WorkCover Queensland [2002] 1 Qd R 496, cited
Watkin v GRM International Pty Ltd [2007] 1 Qd R 389; [2006] QCA 382, cited

COUNSEL:

W D P Campbell for the applicant
M Forbes for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the applicant
East Coast Lawyers for the respondent

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Brown J and with the reasons given by her Honour.
MORRISON JA: I agree with the reasons of Brown J and the order her Honour proposes.
BROWN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal orders of the District Court made on 2 June 2017 granting leave to the respondent to proceed under s 298 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) notwithstanding non-compliance with s 275 of the Act, subject to conditions. WorkCover Queensland is relevantly the insurer of A Top Class Turf Pty Ltd in relation to this application. The issue is whether the respondent…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read A Top Class Turf Pty Ltd v Parfitt and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] QCA 127
Decision Date: 19 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

A Top Class Turf Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal against orders of the District Court which granted leave to Mr Parfitt to proceed with an action for damages against the company under section 298 of the Workers’ Compensation Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 (Qld). The applicant, which is insured by WorkCover Queensland, argued that Mr Parfitt was precluded from bringing an action for damages under section 237 of the Act because his application for statutory workers’ compensation was rejected by WorkCover on its merits. Mr Parfitt, on the other hand, submitted that the rejection of his application for compensation was not on its merits because it was made out of time and no application was made under sections 131 and 132 of the Act. He also submitted that section 132A of the Act applied, which allowed him to bring an action for damages.

The court considered whether the application for compensation was rejected by WorkCover after a consideration of its merits, whether the case of Jacobs v Woolworths Limited was distinguishable or wrongly decided, and whether section 132A of the Act applied. The court held that the application for compensation was rejected by WorkCover on the basis that it was made out of time and not on its merits. The court also held that the case of Jacobs v Woolworths Limited was distinguishable and that section 132A of the Act did not apply to this case. Consequently, the applicant was not precluded from bringing an action for damages against the respondent.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal. The court held that the District Court did not err in granting leave to Mr Parfitt to proceed with his action for damages against the applicant. The court also held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the District Court had erred in its decision to grant leave to Mr Parfitt to proceed with his action for damages. The court found that the applicant had not made out a case for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	A Top Class Turf Pty Ltd v Parfitt [2018] QCA 127
PARTIES:	A TOP CLASS TURF PTY LTD ACN 108 471 049 (applicant) v MICHAEL DANIEL PARFITT (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6553 of 2017 DC No 1914 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 2 June 2017 (Koppenol DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	19 June 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 November 2017
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Brown J
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST EMPLOYER – TIME FOR INSTITUTING ACTION FOR DAMAGES – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal orders of the District Court granting leave to the respondent to proceed under s 298 of the Workers’ Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) – where WorkCover Queensland is the insurer of the applicant – where the respondent applied to WorkCover for statutory workers’ compensation out of time – where WorkCover rejected the application – where the applicant submits that the respondent is precluded from seeking damages under s 237 of the Act on the basis that the application was rejected on its merits – where the respondent submits that the application for compensation was made out of time and that there was no application made under s 131 and s 132 of the Act – whether the application for compensation was rejected by WorkCover after a consideration of its merits – whether the case of Jacobs v Woolworths Limited was distinguishable or wrongly decided – whether s 132A of the Act applied – whether leave to appeal should be granted Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 131(1), s 131(5), s 132, s 132A, s 134, s 179, s 237, s 275, s 276, s 298, s 302(1) Charlton v WorkCover Queensland [2007] 2 Qd R 421; [2006] QCA 498, cited Jacobs v Woolworths Limited [2010] 2 Qd R 400; [2010] QSC 24, considered Kelly v WorkCover Queensland [2002] 1 Qd R 496, cited Watkin v GRM International Pty Ltd [2007] 1 Qd R 389; [2006] QCA 382, cited
COUNSEL:	W D P Campbell for the applicant M Forbes for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the applicant East Coast Lawyers for the respondent