Anglo Coal (Capcoal Management) Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator & Etherington - [2017] QIRC 103

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Anglo Coal (Capcoal Management) Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator & Etherington [2017] QIRC 103
PARTIES:	Anglo Coal (Capcoal Management) Pty Ltd (appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (first respondent) & Etherington, John Brian (second respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2016/9
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	24 November 2017
HEARING DATES:	30, 31 January, 1, 2, 3 February, 24 April 2017
MEMBER:	Deputy President O'Connor
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The decision of the first respondent dated 12 December 2015 is set aside. 3. The application for compensation made by the second respondent is not one for acceptance. 4. The first and second respondents are to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION – PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY – whether the appellant's injury arose out of, or in the course of, the appellant's employment – whether the appellant's employment was the major significant contributing factor to his injury – whether his injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way – whether injury arose out of his perception of reasonable management action taken against him – appellant bears onus of proof.
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32 Blackwood v Adams [2015] ICQ 001 Carlton v Blackwood [2017] ICQ 001 Commonwealth Bank v Reeve (2012) 199 FCR 463 Read v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 072 Keen v Workers' Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation (1998) 71 SASR 42 McMah v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 013 Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2006] 1 Qd R 519 Prizeman v Q-COMP (2005) 180 QGIG 481 Qantas Airways Limited v Q-Comp (2006) 181 QGIG 301 Q-COMP v Foote (2008) 189 QGIG 802 Q-COMP v Glen Rowe (2009) 191 QGIG 67 Sabo v Q-COMP (C/2010/46) - Decision WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 170 QGIG 93
APPEARANCES:	Mr G O'Driscoll, Counsel instructed by Ashurst, for the appellant. Mr S Gray, Counsel directly instructed by the first respondent. Ms S D Anderson, Counsel instructed by Turner Freeman Lawyers for the second respondent.

Reasons for Decision

The second respondent in this matter, Mr John Etherington, commenced employment with the appellant, Anglo Coal (Capcoal Management) Pty Ltd, on 9 November 2011 firstly as a graduate surveyor at the Dawson and Drayton Mines and from 2 October 2014 as a mine surveyor at the Foxleigh Mine. Throughout his time at Foxleigh, Mr Etherington was supervised by Mr Chris Crosby, Technical Services Superintendent - Surveying, Drill and Blast, and Geotechnical Activities.
The appellant contends that the second respondent did not suffer a psychiatric injury pursuant to section 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) in that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment and that his employment was not the major…

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 Anglo Coal (Capcoal Management) Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensat...

Details

AGLC: Anglo Coal (Capcoal Management) Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator and Etherington [2017] QIRC 103
Case: [2017] QIRC 103
Decision Date: 24 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anglo Coal (Capcoal Management) Pty Ltd, the Workers' Compensation Regulator, and Etherington appeared before the Court in a case concerning the acceptance of an application for compensation for a psychiatric or psychological injury. The central dispute was whether the appellant's injury arose out of or in the course of his employment, and whether his employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury. Additionally, the court had to determine if the injury arose from reasonable management actions taken in a reasonable manner or from the appellant's perception of such actions.

The court addressed several legal issues. Firstly, it examined whether the appellant's injury was a result of his employment and if his employment was a significant contributing factor. Secondly, the court considered if the injury resulted from reasonable management actions taken in a reasonable way or from the appellant's perception of such actions. The court emphasised that the onus of proof rested on the appellant to establish these points.

In its reasoning, the court found that the appellant had successfully demonstrated that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, and that his employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury. The court also concluded that the injury arose out of the appellant's perception of reasonable management actions taken against him. The court held that the appellant had discharged his burden of proof on all relevant issues. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 12 December 2015 was set aside, and the application for compensation made by Etherington was not accepted. The first and second respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The decision of the first respondent dated 12 December 2015 is set aside.

3. The application for compensation made by the second respondent is not one for acceptance.

4. The first and second respondents are to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further 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.