Blackwood v Hinder

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Blackwood v Hinder [2017] QDC 239

PARTIES:

SIMON BLACKWOOD
(appellant)

v

COLIN HINDER
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

4881/15

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal under s 222 of the Justices Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane Industrial Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

29 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 May 2016

JUDGE:

Horneman-Wren SC, DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed. 1.          

Set aside the orders of the Brisbane Industrial Magistrates Court made on 23 November 2015.2.          

3.          Remit the matter to the Brisbane Industrial Magistrates Court to be heard and determined according to law.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – WORKERS COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION – INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATES COURT – whether the relevant knowledge of the Regulator or WorkCover bringing the proceeding is the correct construction to be applied under s579(b)(ii) of Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – where the law to be applied is that which was in force at first instance – where the Magistrate erred in determining that the relevant knowledge of WorkCover extended to knowledge of any employee under s579(b)(ii) of Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - where the Magistrate erred in determining a WorkCover employee had the requisite knowledge of the facts sufficient to establish the respondent’s contravention – where the Magistrate erred in awarding discretionary costs at a higher amount under s 158B(2) of the Justices Act 1886 – where appeal allowed

COUNSEL:

Ms PM Clohessy for the appellant

Mr AF Maher for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law Queensland for the appellant

Carter Capner for the respondent

Introduction

1. By complaint made on 28 May 2015, the appellant, Simon Blackwood commenced a proceeding in the Industrial Magistrates Court against the respondent, Colin Hinder, in which he alleged that the respondent had committed three offences against the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCRA).  One charge, brought pursuant to s 533 WCRA, was that the respondent had defrauded WorkCover Queensland.  The other two charges, brought pursuant to s 534(2) WCRA, were that the respondent had stated false or misleading information knowing that information was false or misleading in a material particular.

1. The respondent applied to an industrial magistrate to have the proceeding struck out or permanently stayed on the ground that it had been commenced outside of the time allowed under s 579(3) WCRA.  On 23 November 2015 an industrial magistrate found that the proceeding had been commenced out of time and struck it out.  The magistrate also ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $25,500.

1. The appellant appeals to this court on the grounds that the learned industrial magistrate erred in striking out the proceeding and in making the costs order.

1. For the reasons which follow, the appeal should be allowed and the orders set aside.

The statutory provisions relevant to the proceeding below

1. Section 579 WCRA[1] provides:

   [1]The relevant version of the legislation is the reprint current as at 9 October 2015. 

“579 Summary proceedings for offences other than against ch 8

(1) This section applies to a proceeding for…