Bell v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2020] QIRC 37

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Bell v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2020] QIRC 037

PARTIES:

Edward James Bell
(Appellant)

v

Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)
(Respondent)

CASE NO:
WC/2015/199

PROCEEDING:
Application to reopen proceedings

DELIVERED ON:
5 March 2020

HEARING DATE:
9 December 2019

MEMBER:
HEARD AT:

HARTIGAN IC

Brisbane

ORDER:

1.      The application to reopen the appeal is dismissed.

2.      The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of this application to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – proceedings struck out for failure to prosecute – application to reopen proceedings – whether in the interests of justice to reopen proceedings.

LEGISLATION:
CASES:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 484

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), r 231

Aqwell Pty Ltd v BJC Drilling Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] QSC 413

Brisbane South Regional Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541

Emaas Pty Ltd v Mobil Oil Australia Limited [2003] QCA 232

Finborough Investments Pty Ltd v Airlie Beach Pty Ltd [1995] 1 Qd R 12

Page v The Central Queensland University [2006] QCA 478

Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd [2000] QCA 178

APPEARANCES:  Ms C.B. Donnan of counsel for the appellant.

Mr S.P. Gray of counsel for the respondent.

Reasons for Decision
Introduction

[1]On 29 August 2017, the Industrial Registry requested[1] Mr Bell to show cause as to why his appeal should not be struck out, as no action had been taken in the appeal for at least 1 year. Mr Bell had in fact not taken a step in the appeal since 8 April 2016. Mr Bell did not respond to the request to show cause. On 26 September 2016, the appeal was struck out. Mr Bell now[2] applies to reopen the proceedings pursuant to s 484 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ("the Act").
[1] Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 231.
[2] By application filed on 22 May 2019.
[2]A notice of appeal was filed by Mr Bell on 16 July 2015 with respect to a decision of the Regulator that confirmed a decision of WorkCover to reject Mr Bell's application for compensation. The appeal was initially listed for hearing in Mackay on 3 to 5 November 2015. At a review mention on 22 October 2015, Mr Bell sought, and was granted, an adjournment of the trial to obtain further medical evidence.
[3]The appeal was relisted for hearing in Mackay on 11 to 13 April 2016. On 8 April 2016, Mr Bell sought, and was granted, a further adjournment of the hearing. The purpose of the adjournment on that occasion was for Mr Bell to serve a Notice of Non-Party Discovery. The Regulator was awarded the costs thrown away of the adjournment.
[4]Mr Bell's application for an adjournment on 8 April 2016 was the last step taken by him in the appeal prior to it being struck out. Mr Bell states that his solicitor did not receive…

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 Bell 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: [2020] QIRC 37
Decision Date: 5 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Bell, filed an appeal against a decision made by the Workers' Compensation Regulator, Simon Blackwood, which had dismissed his claim for workers' compensation. The appeal was struck out due to the applicant's failure to prosecute the matter. Bell subsequently applied to reopen the appeal, arguing it was in the interests of justice to do so. The court had to decide whether the appeal should be reopened and, if so, under what conditions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the interests of justice required the reopening of the appeal proceedings that had been struck out. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the reasons for the initial striking out of the appeal, the applicant's reasons for the delay, and any potential prejudice to the respondent if the appeal were to be reopened. The court also weighed the importance of finality in litigation and the need to avoid unnecessary prolongation of proceedings.

In determining the matter, the court found that the applicant's reasons for the delay were not compelling enough to warrant reopening the appeal. The court considered that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that reopening the appeal would not serve the interests of justice. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the potential prejudice to the respondent if the appeal were to be allowed to proceed after such a significant delay. Consequently, the application to reopen the appeal was dismissed.

The court ordered that the applicant was to pay the respondent's costs of the application to be agreed upon, or, if agreement could not be reached, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission. This outcome reflects the court's firm stance on the necessity of adhering to procedural rules and the limited circumstances under which an appeal may be reopened after being struck out.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to reopen the appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of this application 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.

CITATION:	Bell v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2020] QIRC 037
PARTIES:	Edward James Bell (Appellant) v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2015/199
PROCEEDING:	Application to reopen proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	5 March 2020
HEARING DATE:	9 December 2019
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	HARTIGAN IC Brisbane
ORDER:	1. The application to reopen the appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of this application to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – proceedings struck out for failure to prosecute – application to reopen proceedings – whether in the interests of justice to reopen proceedings.
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 484 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), r 231 Aqwell Pty Ltd v BJC Drilling Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] QSC 413 Brisbane South Regional Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 Emaas Pty Ltd v Mobil Oil Australia Limited [2003] QCA 232 Finborough Investments Pty Ltd v Airlie Beach Pty Ltd [1995] 1 Qd R 12 Page v The Central Queensland University [2006] QCA 478 Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd [2000] QCA 178