Chapman v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2015] QIRC 132

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Chapman v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 132
PARTIES:	Chapman, Geoffrey (Appellant) v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2014/335
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against a decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)
DELIVERED ON:	16 July 2015
HEARING DATES:	23 to 25 March 2015 22 May 2015 (Respondent's Submissions) 18 June 2015 (Appellant's Submissions) 2 July 2015 (Respondent's Submissions in reply)
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner Thompson
ORDERS:	1. The Appeal is upheld. 2. The decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) of 27 October 2014 is set aside. Claim one for acceptance. 3. The Regulator is to pay the Appellant's costs of and incidental to this Appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION ‑ APPEAL AGAINST DECISION ‑ Decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) ‑ Appellant bears onus of proof ‑ Standard of proof ‑ Balance of probabilities ‑ Witness evidence ‑ Stressors - Worker sustained a personal injury in the form of a psychiatric injury - Personal injury sustained by the worker arose out of or in the course of his employment and the employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury - Stressors 6 and 8 found to be unreasonable management action taken in an unreasonable way - Appeal upheld - Decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) set aside - Appellant entitled to costs of and incidental to this Appeal .
CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 11, s 32 Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] QCA 48 Prizeman v Q-COMP (2005) QIC 53 Labaj v WorkCover Queensland [2003] QIC 155 MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100 Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8 Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) AND Campbell [2014] QIRC 105 State of Queensland AND Q-COMP (C/2009/42) - Decision < Comcare v PVWY [2013] HCA 41 Queensland Corrective Services Commission v Gallagher (1998) QCA 426 Q-COMP v Hohn (2008) 187 QGIG 139
APPEARANCES:	Mr S. Sapsford of Counsel, initially instructed by Industrial Relations & Employment Solutions Australia, now instructed by Romans and Romans Lawyers for the Appellant. Mr R. Clutterbuck, Counsel directly instructed by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the Respondent.

Decision

On 21 November 2014 Geoffrey Chapman (Chapman) lodged a Notice of Appeal with the Industrial Registrar pursuant to s 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against a decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (the Regulator) released on 27 October 2014.
The decision of the Regulator confirmed the decision of WorkCover Queensland (WorkCover) to reject an application by Chapman for compensation in accordance with s 32(5) of the Act.
Relevant Legislation

The Legislation pertinent to this Appeal is 32 of the Act:
"32 Meaning of injury
(1)An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if
…
(b)for a psychiatric or psychological disorder ‑ the employment is the major significant contributing factor to the…

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 Chapman 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: [2015] QIRC 132
Decision Date: 16 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chapman appealed against a decision by Simon Blackwood, the Workers' Compensation Regulator, who had dismissed his claim for workers' compensation. The claim arose from a psychiatric injury Chapman sustained, which he alleged was due to unreasonable management actions during his employment. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where the central issue was whether Chapman's psychiatric injury was caused by specific unreasonable management actions, and whether these actions were taken in an unreasonable manner. The Regulator argued that Chapman had not met the required standard of proof, which was on the balance of probabilities.

The tribunal had to consider whether Chapman's claim was substantiated by the evidence, particularly focusing on the nature and timing of the alleged unreasonable management actions. Stressors 6 and 8, which involved a late-night email and SMS requesting a meeting, were identified as unreasonable management actions taken in an unreasonable way. The tribunal found that these actions contributed significantly to Chapman's psychiatric injury. The Regulator's argument that Chapman had not met the burden of proof was rejected, as the tribunal was satisfied that the evidence supported the claim on the balance of probabilities.

Consequently, the tribunal upheld Chapman's appeal, set aside the Regulator's decision, and accepted Chapman's claim for workers' compensation. The tribunal ordered that the Regulator pay Chapman's costs of and incidental to the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to proper custom and practice in management actions, particularly in high-stress situations, and the necessity for employers to consider the timing and manner of communications to avoid contributing to employees' mental health issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appeal is upheld.

2. The decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) of 27 October 2014 is set aside. Claim one for acceptance.

3. The Regulator is to pay the Appellant's costs of and incidental to this Appeal.

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

Once again Scholz had decided to embark on an industrial relations path without regards for proper custom and practice, thus rendering the management action of sending the email at 12.44 am and the SMS at 12.45 am requesting a meeting the following morning sent immediately after the email as unreasonable management action taken in an unreasonable way.Consideration of the Stressors