Corney v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) - [2024] QIRC 305

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Corney v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2024] QIRC 305
PARTIES:	Corney, Steven (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASENO:	WC/2022/201
PROCEEDING:	Objections to notices of non-party production
DELIVEREDON:	9 December 2024 (Townsville)
DATESOFWRITTENSUBMISSIONS:	Appellant's written submissions filed on 6 December 2024 Respondent's written submissions filed on 6 December 2024 Written submissions of the State of Queensland (Townsville Hospital and Health Service) filed on 6 December 2024
MEMBER:	Merrell DP
ORDERS:	The orders contained in paragraph [116] of these reasons for decision
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – Appellant employed by the State of Queensland as an Enrolled Nurse at the Townsville University Hospital which is part of the Townsville Hospital and Health Service – Appellant applied for workers' compensation pursuant to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 in respect of a psychiatric injury – application rejected by WorkCover Queensland – on review, the Respondent confirmed the decision of WorkCover Queensland – appeal by Appellant to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission against the review decision of the

Respondent – in November 2024, the Appellant took out two notices of non-party production directed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Townville University Hospital for various documents including the medical records of a patient – Townsville Hospital and Health Service filed notices of objection to the two notices of non-party production – Appellant applied for decisions about the objections to the two notices of non-party production to lift the stays on them brought about by the service on him of the objections – the two November 2024 notices of non-party production requested by the Appellant were an abuse of the procedures of the Commission because they were requested as a means of avoiding stays of two earlier notices of non-party production requested by the Appellant in October 2024 which sought the same documents – the two November 2024 notices of non-party production set aside

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – INHERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS – TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS – OTHER CASES AND
MATTERS – express or incidental powers of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to exercise power to prevent an abuse of its procedures – abuse of process where Appellant's request for notices of non-party production was to avoid the operation of r 64F of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 in respect of the same categories of documents sought by earlier notices of non-party production requested by the Appellant – notices of non-party production set aside

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE OR TERRITORY COURTS – PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF EVIDENCE – SUBPOENAS AND NOTICES TO PRODUCE AT HEARING – SETTING ASIDE AND
OTHER RELIEF – grounds to set aside notices of non-party production having regard to the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in McEwan v Rains – whether notices of non-party production requested by the Appellant should be set aside on such grounds – notices of non-party production requested by the Appellant are

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 Corney v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Corney v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2024] QIRC 305
Case: [2024] QIRC 305
Decision Date: 9 December 2024 (Townsville)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Corney v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2), Mr Corney, an Enrolled Nurse employed by the State of Queensland, sought workers' compensation for a psychiatric injury sustained in the course of his employment at the Townsville University Hospital. His application for compensation was rejected by WorkCover Queensland and subsequently upheld by the Workers' Compensation Regulator on review. Mr Corney appealed this decision to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The legal issues before the Court centred on whether the Commission had the authority to set aside notices of non-party production (NNPPs) issued by Mr Corney, which were deemed an abuse of the Commission's process. The Court was tasked with determining if the Commission's power to make any order it considered appropriate under rule 64G(2) of the Rules included the authority to prevent such an abuse of process.

The Court found that the Commission indeed possessed the necessary powers to address the abuse of process, both explicitly under rule 64G(2) and implicitly as powers incidental and necessary to the exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court further determined that the notices of non-party production requested by Mr Corney constituted an abuse of the Commission's process, given that he did not address the objections raised by the Health Service regarding earlier notices. The Court held that these actions served to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Consequently, the Court set aside the notices of non-party production requested by Mr Corney and dismissed his application to make a decision about the Health Service's December objections. The Court's reasoning was grounded in the need to uphold the integrity of the Commission's process and prevent any form of abuse that could undermine the administration of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders contained in paragraph [116] of these reasons for decision

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

By his present application, the power Mr Corney requests the Commission to exercise is its power pursuant to r 64G(1) of the Rules. Rule 64G of the Rules provides:64G Industrial tribunal’s decision about objection Section 553(1) of the WCR Act provides the Rules apply to an appeal under ch 13, pt 3, div 1 of the WCR Act '… with necessary changes.' There are no necessary changes apparent in respect of the application of r 64G of the Rules to the present matter. The Commission, pursuant to r 64G(2) of the Rules, has an express discretion to make any order it considers appropriate. In my view, given the obvious purpose of r 64G(2) of the Rules, such a broad power would clearly include a power to set aside a notice of non- party production because such a notice amounts to an abuse of the process of the Commission. Independent of such express power, the Commission also has such powers as are incidental and necessary to the exercise of the jurisdiction or power so conferred.13 Even if I am wrong about the Commission's express powers to deal with an abuse of process (about a notice of non-party production) as set out above, the Commission also has such powers as are incidental and necessary to the exercise of jurisdiction or power so conferred on it. That is to say, the Commission, in respect of the power to make a decision pursuant to r 64G of the Rules (about an objection to a notice of non-party production), would have a power that is incidental and necessary to the exercise of that power. In my view, a power to prevent an abuse of the process of the Commission would be incidental and necessary to the exercise of the Commission's power pursuant to r 64G of the Rules. In Australian Salaried Medical Officers' Federation Queensland, Industrial Organisation of Employees v State of Queensland (Department of Health),14 a Full Bench of the Commission15 relevantly stated (footnotes omitted): Mr Corney did not address this issue in his submissions. Both the Regulator and the Health Service submit it is open for the Commission to conclude that the November NNPPs amount to an abuse of the Commission's process because Mr Corney did not make an application under r 64G of the Rules in relation to the Health Service's October objections. In particular, the Regulator submits the November NNPPs are not relevant to any issue in Mr Corney's appeal which strengthens the case to conclude that the November NNPPs are an abuse of process. In all the circumstances of the present case, the November NNPPs requested by Mr Corney, and his application to make a decision about the Health Service's December objections, amount to an abuse of the Commission's procedures which serves to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Mr Corney requested the October NNPPs and they were issued on 14 October 2024. By the first October objection, the Health Service served objections in respect of the first and third categories of documents sought by the first October NNPP. By the second October objection, the Health Service served objections to both categories of documents sought by the second October NNPP.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.