Corney v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2023] QIRC 170

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Corney v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 170
PARTIES:	Corney, Steven (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2022/201
PROCEEDING:	Objection to Notice of Non-Party Disclosure
DELIVERED ON:	9 June 2023
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Hartigan DP On the papers
ORDER:	1. Leave is granted pursuant to rule 64E(2) of the Queensland Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 (Qld) for Mr Corney to object to the Notice of Non- Party disclosure filed in the Industrial Registry on 1 March 2023. *2. Pursuant to rule 64G(2)(c) of the Queensland Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011* (Qld) the Notice of Non-Party Disclosure is set aside.**
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – DISCLOSURE – Notice of Non-Party Disclosure –whether the Appellant is an affected party – Appellant is an affected party – leave is granted to object – Notice of Non-Party Disclosure set aside
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), r 64B, r 64C, r 64D, r 64E and r 64G Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999 (Qld), r 245 CSR Ltd v Casaron Pty Ltd (2003) QSC 126

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

The Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Regulator') filed a Notice of Non-Party Disclosure ('the NNPD'), pursuant to r 64B of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the Tribunal Rules') requiring that the Townsville Family Medical Centre disclose information relating to Mr Steven Corney ('the Appellant').
Mr Corney, the Appellant in the substantive proceedings which is an appeal of the Regulator's decision to reject Mr Corney's application for workers' compensation, objects to the NNPD.
By written correspondence to the Commission, on 8 March 2023, the Regulator contended that Mr Corney was not a person affected by the NNPD and was not able to object to it being issued. I subsequently listed the matter for mention and issued directions with regard to the parties filing written submissions. Those directions have been complied with by the parties.

Background

During the period when the circumstances giving rise to his application for compensation occurred, Mr Corney was employed as an Enrolled Nurse by the Townsville Hospital and Health Service ('the THHS'). Mr Corney claims to have sustained a psychiatric injury that arose out of, or in the course of his employment.
On 20 June 2022, Mr Corney lodged an application for compensation with WorkCover Queensland for a psychiatric injury.

By letter dated 11 August 2022, WorkCover advised Mr Corney that his application for compensation had been rejected.

On 14 December 2022, Mr Corney lodged with the Industrial Registrar a Notice of Appeal of the Regulator's decision dated 18 November 2022 rejecting Mr Corney's application for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Act.

The Notice of Non-Party Disclosure – Townsville Family Medical Centre

By Notice of Non-Party Disclosure filed by the Regulator, Townsville Family Medical Centre ('the Medical Centre') was required to produce the following documents:

No. Date Description

1 Various A full and complete copy of all records relating to Steven Corney (DOB:22/01/1971) including but not limited to consultation and/or treatment…

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 Corney v 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: [2023] QIRC 170
Decision Date: 9 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Corney v Workers' Compensation Regulator is a decision from the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission where Mr Corney sought to object to a Notice of Non-Party Disclosure filed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator in a matter concerning a workers' compensation claim. The nature of the dispute was whether Mr Corney, who was not a party to the proceedings, was an affected party under the relevant industrial relations rules, thereby entitling him to object to the disclosure. The Industrial Relations Commission was tasked with determining this point of law.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Corney qualified as an "affected party" under rule 64A of the Queensland Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 (Qld). If he was deemed an affected party, he would have the right to object to the disclosure of documents to a non-party. The Workers' Compensation Regulator argued that Mr Corney was not an affected party and thus had no standing to object. The Commission had to interpret the relevant rules to decide if Mr Corney's interests were sufficiently impacted by the disclosure to warrant his participation in the objection process.

The Commission found that Mr Corney was indeed an affected party as his interests were directly affected by the disclosure of documents to the non-party. This finding was based on the understanding that Mr Corney's ability to defend the workers' compensation claim could be prejudiced by the disclosure. Consequently, the Commission granted Mr Corney leave to object to the Notice of Non-Party Disclosure and set aside the notice as per rule 64G(2)(c) of the Queensland Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 (Qld). The decision underscored the importance of the correct interpretation of procedural rules to ensure fair treatment of all parties involved in industrial relations disputes.

The final orders of the Commission granted Mr Corney leave to object to the Notice of Non-Party Disclosure and set aside the notice, ensuring that Mr Corney's right to participate in the objection process was upheld. This decision reinforces the principle that parties with a significant stake in the outcome of industrial relations proceedings should be afforded the opportunity to challenge procedural steps that may impact their rights.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave is granted pursuant to rule 64E(2) of the Queensland Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 (Qld) for Mr Corney to object to the Notice of Non- Party disclosure filed in the Industrial Registry on 1 March 2023.

2. Pursuant to rule 64G(2)(c) of the Queensland Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 (Qld) the Notice of Non-Party Disclosure is set aside.

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.

No.	Date	Description
1	Various	A full and complete copy of all records relating to Steven Corney (DOB:22/01/1971) including but not limited to consultation and/or treatment…