QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | |
PARTIES: | Jason Scott Allwood v Workers' Compensation Regulator |
CASE NO: | WC/2016/84 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal |
DELIVERED ON: | 28 September 2017 |
HEARING: | 13, 14, 15 December 2016, 20 April 2017 |
MEMBER: | Deputy President O'Connor |
| ORDERS : | 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 15 April 2016 is set aside. 3. The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of an application to the Commission. |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION – Where injury exists – Whether injury excluded under s32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – Appeal allowed |
LEGISLATION: CASES: | Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14D Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) ch 11 pt 5 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32 Canadian General Electric Company Limited v The Ontario Labour Relations Board (1956) OR 437 Commonwealth Bank v Reeve (2012) 199 FCR 463 Davidson v Blackwood [2014] QIC 008 Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009 Graham Douglas Stewart v Q-COMP (C/2010/52) Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd (1992) 173 CLR 473 Luxton v Q-Comp (2009) 190 QGIG 4 Makita v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2006] 1 Qd R 519 O'Brien v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 383 Q-COMP v Green (2008) 189 QGIG 747 Q-Comp v Unqerer (C/2012/13) Read v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 072 Theiss Pty Ltd v Q-COMP (C/2010/11) Rutledge and Comcare [2011] AATA 865 (7 December 2011) Steven Lane AND Q-COMP (C/2009/34) |
APPEARANCES: | Ms S D Anderson of Counsel, instructed by Shine Lawyers for the appellant Mr P Rashleigh of Counsel, instructed directly by the respondent |
Reasons for Decision
Jason Allwood commenced employment with BES IT Systems on 1 August 2005 first as a technician and thereafter as a service manager. The appellant's role mainly comprised the maintenance and repair of computers. The appellant claims to have suffered a psychiatric injury in the course of his employment between an unidentified date in 2008 and 18 July 2014. He now seeks to set aside the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 15 April 2016 confirming the decision of Workcover Queensland to reject the claim for compensation in accordance with s32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.
The issues
In this matter there are four questions which must be answered in deciding the ultimate issue:
1.Did the appellant suffer a personal injury, that being a psychiatric or psychological disorder?
2.Did the appellant's personal injury arise out of, or in the course of, his employment?
3.Was his employment the major significant contributing factor to his injury?
4.Is the injury excluded from being compensable because the injury was the consequence of "reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way"…
Continue reading Allwood v Workers' Compensation Regulator
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Allwood v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 88
- Case
- [2017] QIRC 88
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue at the heart of this appeal was whether the injury Allwood sustained was excluded from the definition of a "work-related injury" under the statute. The Workers' Compensation Regulator had determined that the injury was excluded because it was caused by a pre-existing condition and was not related to an event that occurred in the course of employment. Allwood contended that the injury, while exacerbated by a pre-existing condition, was triggered by a specific work-related incident and thus should be covered by the Act.
The court found that the injury Allwood suffered, although exacerbated by a pre-existing condition, was not entirely excluded from coverage under section 32(5) of the Act. The court held that the injury was work-related as it arose out of and in the course of employment, and was not solely due to the pre-existing condition. The court held that the Regulator's decision to exclude the injury was therefore incorrect, and the appeal was allowed. Consequently, the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 15 April 2016 was set aside. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal, to be agreed upon or, if agreement could not be reached, to be the subject of an application to the Commission.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 15 April 2016 is set aside.
3. The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of an application to the Commission.
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.