Carlton v Blackwood

Case [2017] ICQ 1

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Carlton v Blackwood [2017] ICQ 001

PARTIES:

MARION THERESE CARLTON

(appellant)

v
SIMON BLACKWOOD (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR)

(respondent)

FILE NO:

C/2015/42

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

29 May 2017

HEARING DATE:

1 February 2017

MEMBER:

Martin J, President

ORDER/S:

1.   The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – EXCLUSIONS – STRESS INJURIES: AS A RESULT OF REASONABLE DISCIPLINARY OR ADMNISTRATIVE ACTION BY EMPLOYER – where the Workers’ Compensation Regulator found that the appellant had not suffered an “injury” within the meaning of the Act – where the Commission affirmed the decision of the Regulator

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – WHAT IS – GENERALLY – where the appellant appeals against a decision of the Commission – where the appellant alleges the Commissioner’s failure to establish “primary facts” constitutes an error of law – whether a failure to establish “primary facts” is an error of law – where the appellant also alleges the Commissioner failed to consider relevant factors –  whether there was an error of law

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 1999

Industrial Relations Act 2016

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011

CASES:

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321

Blackwood v Adams [2015] ICQ 001

Blackwood v Mahaffey (2016) 259 IR 137

British Launderers' Research Assn v Borough of Hendon Rating Authority [1949] 1 KB 462

Carlton v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 150

Jegatheeswaran v MIMA (2001) 194 ALR 263

State of Queensland (Department of Education and Training) v Workers Compensation Regulator [2016] ICQ 021

Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54

APPEARANCES:

A J See instructed by Kerin Lawyers for the appellant

S A McLeod directly instructed by the Workers Compensation Regulator for the respondent

  1. Marion Carlton was engaged by Clayfield College to be its Head of Boarding.  On 8 November 2010 there was a meeting attended by Ms Carlton, the college’s headmaster, Mr Savins, and the school’s business manager, Ms Gallinaro.

  2. They had a discussion about Ms Carlton’s work performance and, at the end of the meeting, Mr Savins gave her a letter which set out a number of matters of concern about how she had been conducting herself and about her performance as Head of Boarding.

  3. Shortly after the meeting, the appellant commenced a period of sick leave. 

  4. On 16 November, the appellant’s solicitors sent a letter to the school responding to the matters raised in the letter given to her on 8 November.

  5. The appellant’s claim that her employment was a significant contributing factor to the development of an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood was accepted by the Commissioner. But, the Commissioner held that the appellant’s injury was not compensable because it was excluded by the operation of s 32(5) of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (“the Act”).

  6. Ms Carlton appeals against the Commissioner’s decision that she did not suffer an injury within the…

Continue reading Carlton v Blackwood

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Carlton v Blackwood [2017] ICQ 1
Case
[2017] ICQ 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Carlton v Blackwood, the appellant, Carlton, contested a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator which found that the appellant had not suffered an injury that qualified for compensation under the relevant Act. This decision was upheld by the Commission, leading to Carlton’s appeal. The central dispute was whether Carlton had sustained an injury resulting from reasonable disciplinary or administrative actions by the employer that warranted workers’ compensation.

The legal issues in this case encompassed whether the Commissioner erred in not establishing certain primary facts, and if such an omission constituted an error of law. Additionally, Carlton argued that the Commissioner failed to consider relevant factors, which, if true, could also constitute an error of law. The court needed to determine if these alleged failures to establish primary facts or consider relevant factors amounted to an error of law that would warrant a new trial or appeal.

The court reviewed the evidence and the arguments presented, finding that the appeal was largely based on the appellant’s dissatisfaction with the evidence presented rather than on a demonstration of an error of law. The court emphasised that the case should focus on the issues outlined in the Amended Statement of Events or the Statement of Stressors, rather than extraneous conduct. The court concluded that the appeal did not demonstrate an error of law, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

This is another example of the case being conducted contrary to the written Statement of Events. The Commissioner did accept that Ms Barnes took the opportunity to undermine the appellant at various times. But, this particular ground, like others above, is irrelevant to the case. The conduct of Ms Barnes features nowhere in the Amended Statement of Events. It is irrelevant. Conclusions The appellant has sought to agitate issues some of which should not have been the subject of attention before the Commission but were. Nevertheless, the matters for determination are confined by the Amended Statement of Events or the Statement of Stressors. Cases like this are not to be run as if they are a mini Royal Commission into all aspects of the conduct of both the employer and the employee. The thrust of the appellant’s case in this court has been that there were some parts of the evidence which could have been preferred over other evidence. That does not demonstrate an error of law. The appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.