Blackwood v Mana - [2014] ICQ 27

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Blackwood v Mana [2014] ICQ 027

PARTIES:

SIMON BLACKWOOD (WORKERS COMPENSATION REGULATOR)
(appellant)
v
VICKI ANNE MANA
(respondent)

CASE NO:

C/2014/3

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

31 October 2014

HEARING DATE:

1 July 2014

MEMBER:

Martin J, President

ORDER:

1. Appeal allowed;

2. Set aside the decision of the Industrial Magistrate given on 16 December 2013;

3. In place of that decision, order that the appeal filed by Mrs Mana on 19 October 2010 be dismissed and the review decision of 14 October 2010 be confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – APPEALS, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATED CASES – GENERALLY – where the Industrial Magistrate preferred the claimant’s evidence over other evidence – where reasons were not given for why particular evidence was preferred – where experts relied on circumstances not in evidence before the Industrial Magistrate – whether the Industrial Magistrate failed to provide adequate reasons - whether it was open to the Industrial Magistrate to prefer certain evidence – whether expert reports could be relied on in circumstances where the factual basis for their opinions had not been fully demonstrated in evidence – whether the Industrial Magistrate erred by applying an incorrect construction of s 32 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

CASES:

Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 219
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 844
Parker v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 269
Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642.
Q-Comp v Education Queensland (2005) 179 QGIG 491

APPEARANCES:

SP Gray for the appellant, directly instructed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator
L Willson for the respondent, instructed by Parkinsons Lawyers

In March 2004 Mrs Mana commenced working at the Broadbeach Bowls Club through a placement by an agency. In the following year she was offered and accepted a permanent position as the book-keeper/office administrator at the club.

On 20 May 2010 Mrs Mana lodged an application for compensation for an anxiety/stress disorder said to have been sustained during the course of her employment with the club. That application was rejected and Mrs Mana’s application for a review was unsuccessful.

Mrs Mana appealed that decision and, on 29 November 2011, Wilkie M set the decision of the review officer aside and made findings that the employment was a significant contributing factor to the personal injury suffered by the applicant and that the injury did not arise out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. That decision was then the subject of appeal to the Industrial Court. Hall P set the decision aside on the basis that the learned Magistrate had failed to give adequate reasons for the decision and ordered that the matter be returned to the Industrial Magistrates Court to be heard and determined according to law. That occurred, Mrs Mana was again successful in that court, and the matter…

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 Blackwood v Mana

Details

AGLC: Blackwood v Mana [2014] ICQ 27
Case: [2014] ICQ 27
Decision Date: 31 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Blackwood v Mana, the primary dispute centred around the determination of workers' compensation claims, specifically whether the Industrial Magistrate had adequately assessed and justified the evidence presented. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The claimant, Mrs Mana, sought to appeal the Industrial Magistrate's decision, arguing that the reasons provided for preferring certain evidence were insufficient and that the expert reports relied upon were not properly grounded in the evidence presented.

The court was required to decide whether the Industrial Magistrate had the authority to prefer certain evidence without providing detailed reasons for doing so. Additionally, it needed to determine if it was appropriate for the Industrial Magistrate to rely on expert reports when the factual basis for those reports had not been fully demonstrated in the evidence. Another central issue was whether the Industrial Magistrate had applied an incorrect interpretation of section 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

The court found that the Industrial Magistrate had not provided adequate reasons for preferring Mrs Mana's evidence over other evidence. It was determined that the experts had relied on circumstances not substantiated by the evidence presented to the Industrial Magistrate. The court held that the Industrial Magistrate had erred in applying an incorrect construction of section 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision made by the Industrial Magistrate on 16 December 2013 was set aside. In its place, the court ordered that Mrs Mana's appeal filed on 19 October 2010 be dismissed and that the review decision of 14 October 2010 be confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed;

2. Set aside the decision of the Industrial Magistrate given on 16 December 2013;

3. In place of that decision, order that the appeal filed by Mrs Mana on 19 October 2010 be dismissed and the review decision of 14 October 2010 be confirmed.

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:	Blackwood v Mana [2014] ICQ 027
PARTIES:	SIMON BLACKWOOD (WORKERS COMPENSATION REGULATOR) (appellant) v VICKI ANNE MANA (respondent)
CASE NO:	C/2014/3
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	31 October 2014
HEARING DATE:	1 July 2014
MEMBER:	Martin J, President
ORDER:	1. Appeal allowed; 2. Set aside the decision of the Industrial Magistrate given on 16 December 2013; 3. In place of that decision, order that the appeal filed by Mrs Mana on 19 October 2010 be dismissed and the review decision of 14 October 2010 be confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – APPEALS, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATED CASES – GENERALLY – where the Industrial Magistrate preferred the claimant’s evidence over other evidence – where reasons were not given for why particular evidence was preferred – where experts relied on circumstances not in evidence before the Industrial Magistrate – whether the Industrial Magistrate failed to provide adequate reasons - whether it was open to the Industrial Magistrate to prefer certain evidence – whether expert reports could be relied on in circumstances where the factual basis for their opinions had not been fully demonstrated in evidence – whether the Industrial Magistrate erred by applying an incorrect construction of s 32 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003
CASES:	Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 219 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 844 Parker v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 269 Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642. Q-Comp v Education Queensland (2005) 179 QGIG 491
APPEARANCES:	SP Gray for the appellant, directly instructed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator L Willson for the respondent, instructed by Parkinsons Lawyers