Andrews v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2020] QIRC 104

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Andrews v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 104
PARTIES:	Scott Andrews (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2018/172
PROCEEDING:	Commission acting on own motion
DELIVERED ON:	10 July 2020
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner Dwyer
ORDER:	*1. Pursuant to r 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Rules) 2011, I dismiss the proceedings in matter WC/2018/172.*
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL – Commission acting on own motion to dismiss proceeding – where the appellant has failed to communicate with the Commission – where the appellant has failed to comply with directions of the Commission – whether discretion to dismiss proceeding is enlivened
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011, r 6, r 45 Workers' Compensations and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 144A, s 144B, s 552A Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1990) FCR 388 Quaedvlieg and Ors v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] QIC 73; 180 QGIG 1209 Paul Scott v State of Queensland & Ors [2019] QIRC 115 Quinlan v Rothwell& Anor [2001] QCA 176

Reasons for Decision

Background

On 26 September 2018 Mr Andrews filed a Notice of Appeal ('the appeal') in respect of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Regulator') dated 29 August 2018 ('the decision').
Mr Andrews had successfully applied for benefits under the Workers' Compensations and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the WCR Act') in respect to his injury, and the decision related to the cessation of the payment of those benefits pursuant to s 144A and 144B of the WCR Act.
The appeal was originally allocated to another Member and progressed in the usual fashion i.e. Directions were issued with respect to procedural aspects on 11 October 2018, a s 552A conference was convened on 22 November 2018, further Directions were issued on 22 May 2019, and the parties filed their Statements of Facts and Contentions (respectively) on 20 June and 17 July 2019.
The appeal was subsequently allocated to me in or after July 2019.

A further s 552A conference was convened on 10 October 2019. At that conference Mr Andrews confirmed that he had commenced personal injuries proceedings ('the PI claim') in respect to the injury that was the subject of the appeal. He further advised that a compulsory conference for the PI claim was scheduled to proceed on 3 December 2019. In those circumstances the Regulator agreed to adjourn the matter pending the completion of the compulsory conference.
Following the Christmas break my Associate emailed the parties on 16 January 2020 to enquire whether Mr Andrews had resolved his PI claim at the conference and whether the appeal might now be resolved. No reply was immediately received from Mr Andrews.
My Associate emailed the parties again on 7 February 2020 to request Mr Andrews provide an update on the status of the appeal as soon as possible. Mr Andrews responded on the same day via an email and said:
The matter remains unresolved, however an application has been filed…

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.

Continue reading Andrews v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Andrews v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 104
Case: [2020] QIRC 104
Decision Date: 10 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Andrews v Workers' Compensation Regulator was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of Queensland. The dispute involved an appeal by Mr. Andrews against a decision made by the Workers' Compensation Regulator. Mr. Andrews had filed a claim for workers' compensation but was unable to participate in the proceedings due to his failure to communicate with the Commission and disregard for its directives. The Commission was required to determine whether it had the discretion to dismiss the proceeding under rule 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Rules) 2011.

The primary legal issue for the Court was whether the failure of Mr. Andrews to communicate with the Commission and to comply with its directions provided sufficient grounds for the Commission to exercise its discretion to dismiss the proceeding. The Court considered the provisions of rule 45(3), which allow the Commission to dismiss a proceeding if it considers it appropriate to do so. The Court also examined the nature of the appellant's non-compliance and the impact of this non-compliance on the proceedings.

The Court concluded that Mr. Andrews' failure to communicate with the Commission and to follow its directions constituted significant non-compliance, which undermined the ability of the Commission to effectively adjudicate the merits of the case. The Court held that the discretion under rule 45(3) was indeed engaged and that dismissing the proceeding was an appropriate exercise of that discretion. The Court found that the appellant's conduct had rendered the proceeding unworkable and that dismissal was necessary to prevent an abuse of process.

In light of the above, the Court dismissed the proceedings in matter WC/2018/172. This decision underscores the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and the potential consequences of failing to do so in workers' compensation matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Rules) 2011, I dismiss the proceedings in matter WC/2018/172.

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.