Balderson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2014] QIRC 51

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Balderson

Simon

Blackwood

(Workers'

Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 051

PARTIES:	Balderson, Luke
(Appellant)
v
Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)
(Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2012/490
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against a decision of Simon Blackwood
(Workers' Compensation Regulator)
DELIVERED ON:	7 March 2014
HEARING DATES:	29 and 30 July 2013
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner Black
ORDERS:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - whether the injury arose out of or in the course of employment -worker injured on quad bike ride with co-workers and employer - association between employment and injury considered - held that injury not sustained within the course of employment
CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act
2003, s 32(1), s 32(3)(b), s 550 Henderson v Commissioner for Railways [1937] HCA 67 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32(1) and (3)(b), s 550 Henderson v Commissioner for Railways [1937] HCA 67 Landers v Dawson [1964] HCA 35 Drummond v. Drummond [1960] VR 462 Danvers v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1969] HCA 64; (1969) 122 CLR 529 Comcare v PVYW [2013] HCA 41
Whittingham v. Commissioner of Railways (W.A)
[1931] HCA 49.
Pioneer Studios Pty Ltd v Hills [2012] NSWCA 324 . Commonwealth v Oliver [1962] HCA 38.
Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific trading as Commander
Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 324. Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd (1992) 173 CLR 473 Clancy v Department of Public Health (1962) NSWR2 Wolmar v Travelodge Australia Ltd (1975) 26 FLR 249 Shirley Joy Cooper and Q-COMP (C/2010/38) Decision - Kavanagh v Commonwealth (960) 03 CLR 547
Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Pty Ltd
(2006) QCA 48
APPEARANCES:	Mr T. Nielsen, Counsel instructed by Slater & Gordon Lawyers for the Appellant. Mr S. Sapsford, Counsel directly instructed by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the Respondent.
Introduction

[1] Mr Luke Balderson ("the appellant") appeals a decision of the Review Unit of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ("the Regulator") to reject his application for workers' compensation.
[2] The appellant was employed as a casual concreting labourer by Radjaz Concreting ("the employer"). No work was possible on 24 February 2012 because of inclement weather. In the afternoon Balderson participated in a quad bike ride with his employer and co-workers. During the ride Balderson was thrown from the bike and seriously injured. He was admitted to the Townsville Hospital Emergency Department with multiple injuries, including:

 right temporo / parietal fracture;
 right scapular blade fracture;
 right 3 - 6th rib fracture;
 small right pneumothorax;
 scalp laceration; and
 multiple abrasions on face, shoulder and trunk.

[3] The appellant lodged an application for workers' compensation with WorkCover Queensland ("the Insurer") on 18 May 2012, but his claim was subsequently rejected by the Insurer. On 2 October 2012, the appellant applied for a review of the Insurer's decision with the Regulator. On 7 December 2012, the Regulator confirmed the decision of the Insurer that the appellant's claim was one for rejection. The appellant now appeals the…

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 Balderson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator... 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: [2014] QIRC 51
Decision Date: 7 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Balderson v Simon Blackwood, the claimant sought workers' compensation for injuries sustained during a quad bike ride with co-workers and their employer. The matter was appealed from a lower court decision, which found that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment. The court of appeal was tasked with determining whether the lower court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles to the facts of the case.

The key legal issue before the court was whether the injury occurred in the course of the claimant's employment. The court considered the nature of the quad bike ride, including whether it was an integral part of the employment or merely a social activity. The court also examined the relationship between the employer and the claimant, as well as the circumstances surrounding the injury. The court held that the injury was not sustained within the course of employment, as the quad bike ride was not an integral part of the claimant's duties and was primarily a social activity.

The court found that the lower court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles to the facts of the case. The court acknowledged that the quad bike ride took place with co-workers and the employer, but held that this did not necessarily mean that the injury arose out of or in the course of employment. The court held that the injury occurred during a recreational activity that was not related to the claimant's employment duties. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's decision.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and uphold the lower court's decision. The claimant's application for workers' compensation was denied.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.

	right temporo / parietal fracture;
	right scapular blade fracture;
	right 3 - 6th rib fracture;
	small right pneumothorax;
	scalp laceration; and
	multiple abrasions on face, shoulder and trunk.