Chapman v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 307

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Chapman v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 307
PARTIES:	Chapman, Russell James (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2023/84
PROCEEDING:	Application in existing proceeding
DELIVERED ON:	10 November 2025
HEARING DATE:	27 May 2024
MEMBER:	Hartigan DP
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS:	1. The application in existing proceedings filed by the Regulator on 20 March 2024 is granted. 2. The parties are directed to jointly provide draft orders that reflect these reasons to the Industrial Registry within seven (7) days.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – where the respondent has filed an application in existing proceedings – where the respondent has raised a jurisdictional objection to the scope of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission's jurisdiction to consider matters outside of the Workers' Compensation Regulator's review decision – where the appellant has sought relief in relation to issues allegedly not considered in the review decision – whether the paragraphs in the appellant's statement of facts and contentions fall within the scope of this workers' compensation appeal – whether the appellant can seek relief in regards to his leave and entitlements taken in a certain period – consideration of the scope of a workers' compensation appeal in the Commission – the application is granted
LEGISLATION:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32, s 144A, s 144B, s 145, s 150, s 211, s 545
CASES:	Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 31 Kim v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 14 Wang v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] ICQ 20 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Scofield [2018] ICQ 3
APPEARANCES:	Mr A.N. Tayler of Turner Freeman Lawyers on behalf of the Appellant Ms L. Willson, Counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

The Regulator has applied, within a workers' compensation appeal proceeding, for interlocutory relief with respect to the Commission's jurisdiction to consider matters in this appeal that the Regulator argues go beyond those dealt with in the Regulator's review decision.
The Regulator contends that the terms of its' review decision define the scope of the issues to be considered in the appeal. The Regulator further contends that the Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions go beyond the matters determined in the Regulator's review decision, and consequently, fall outside the Commission's jurisdiction to determine those matters in this appeal.
On appeal, the Appellant claims, inter alia, that he is "entitled to weekly benefits from 16 May to 18 September 2022" as a consequence of having time off following surgery connected to his work-related injury and requests that the Commission make an order that any leave he took over the period of 16 May 2022 to 18 September 2022 (following the surgery) be compensated by way of reimbursement of his leave and payment of weekly compensation for the period.
The Regulator argues that the review decision did not make any determination with respect to the Appellant's entitlement to weekly benefits from 16 May to 18 September 2022,…

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 Chapman v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Chapman v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 307
Case: [2025] QIRC 307
Decision Date: 10 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chapman, an appellant, sought to appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which was made following a review of his claim for workers' compensation. The Regulator filed an application in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, raising a jurisdictional objection to the scope of the Commission's authority to consider issues that were not part of the Regulator's review decision. Specifically, Chapman sought relief regarding leave and entitlements not addressed in the review decision, arguing that the Regulator had failed to consider these matters. The central legal issue was whether the Commission had jurisdiction to consider Chapman's claims outside the scope of the Regulator's review decision.

The court examined the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction in workers' compensation appeals. It considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine if Chapman's claims fell within the permissible scope of appeal. The court concluded that Chapman's claims regarding leave and entitlements, which were not part of the Regulator's review decision, were outside the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction. Therefore, the Commission lacked the authority to consider these claims. The court found that Chapman's contentions extended beyond the scope of the Regulator's review decision, and thus the Commission's jurisdiction was properly challenged.

Based on its findings, the court granted the Regulator's application, dismissing Chapman's appeal on jurisdictional grounds. The court ruled that the Commission's jurisdiction did not extend to considering claims that were not part of the Regulator's review decision. The parties were directed to jointly provide draft orders reflecting these reasons to the Industrial Registry within seven days. This decision reinforced the importance of strictly adhering to the scope of workers' compensation appeals in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application in existing proceedings filed by the Regulator on 20 March 2024 is granted.

2. The parties are directed to jointly provide draft orders that reflect these reasons to the Industrial Registry within seven (7) days.

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.