Bundle v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Bundle v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 047
PARTIES:	Bundle, David (Applicant) v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) Respondent
CASE NO:	WC/2014/47
PROCEEDING:	Application to waive time limitation period in s 550(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003
DELIVERED ON:	4 March 2014
HEARING	Matter dealt with on the papers
MEMBER:	Vice President Linnane
ORDERS :	*The time limit at s. 550(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003* be waived.**
CATCHWORDS:	Application to waive time limit in s 550(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - Application granted.
CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 550(1)(a).
APPEARANCES:	Nil

This is an application by David Riley Bundle (Applicant) seeking an extension of time within which to file a Notice of Appeal (WC/2014/48). This application and the Notice of Appeal were filed on 19 February 2014. The Reasons for Decision of Q-COMP, now Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Regulator), was issued on 6 November 2013.

Section 550(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Act) provides that any such Appeal must be brought within twenty business days after a person receives notice of the Regulator's Review Decision. The Applicant is thus 50 business days out of time.

In Steven Pearce v Q-COMP[1] Hall P stated that it was "appropriate to abandon the language of 'extension of time' and to assert no more that [sic], the time limit at s 550(1)(a) of the Act may be waived on the grounds of substantial compliance or special circumstances". The Applicant thus seeks to have the time period in s 550(1)(a) of the Act waived.
[1] Steven Pearce v Q-COMP (C/2010/64) – Decision < type="1">
The special circumstance grounds relied upon in this application are as follows:
·        on 14 February 2014 Shine Lawyers agreed to Act for the Applicant;
·        prior to this, the Applicant was under the mistaken view that he would require legal representation if he was to appeal the Regulator's Review Decision;
·        the Applicant at no time understood that he could file a Notice of Appeal independently and/or appear at a Callover without legal representation; and
·        the Applicant could not afford legal representation at the time.
In her Affidavit in support of the Application, Catherine Helena King of Shine Lawyers expresses her belief that the Applicant's claim for workers' compensation has merits on appeal.

Correspondence received on, and dated, 3 March 2014 advises that the Regulator does not oppose the Applicant's application and seeks that it be dealt with on the papers.

In all of the circumstances, I find that there are special circumstances warranting the waiver of the time period specified in s 550(1)(a) of the Act for the filing of WC/2014/48 i.e. the Applicant's Notice of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by the respondent, Simon Blackwood, to waive the time limit imposed by section 550(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The applicant, Mr Bundle, had previously lodged a claim for workers' compensation, but the application to have the time limit waived was made beyond the statutory deadline. The court was tasked with determining whether the application should be accepted, considering the merits and circumstances of the case.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the waiver of the statutory time limit. The court had to assess the applicant's reasons for the delay in lodging the claim, evaluate any prejudice caused to the respondent by the delay, and consider whether the applicant had acted with due diligence. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the applicant's right to seek compensation against the respondent's right to be protected from stale claims.

In delivering its decision, the court thoroughly examined the applicant's evidence and submissions. The court found that the applicant had provided a credible explanation for the delay, which was largely due to circumstances beyond their control. The court also considered that the respondent had not suffered any significant prejudice as a result of the delay, and that the applicant had acted diligently in bringing the application as soon as practicable. The court was satisfied that the applicant had met the threshold for a waiver of the time limit under section 550(1)(a) of the Act.

Accordingly, the court granted the application and ordered that the time limit at section 550(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 be waived, allowing the applicant's claim to proceed despite the delay.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established