Costello v Queensland Rail

Case [2014] QSC 83

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Costello v Qld Rail [2014] QSC 83

PARTIES:

JAMES LYNDON ROSS COSTELLO

Applicant

v

QUEENSLAND RAIL
ACN 132 181 090

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

S223 /2014

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

28 April 2014

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDERS:

The parties to agree on and file formal orders within seven days consistently with these reasons.1.   

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS – NOTICE OF INJURY – GENERALLY – where a Notice of Assessment referred to the Medical Assessment Tribunal only referred one of two known psychiatric injuries of the applicant – where the Medical Assessment Tribunal did not take into account all known psychiatric injuries – whether the Notice of Assessment is invalid.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ASSESSMENT AND AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENTS REDEEMED OR COMMUTED TO A LUMP SUM – JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE – where a Notice of Assessment did not assess all physical injuries of the applicant – where the insurer offered the plaintiff a lump sum compensation payment based on this Notice of Assessment – where the applicant accepted the lump sum payment – where the respondent contends that the Court does not have jurisdiction to make the declarations sought – whether acceptance of the lump sum payment made contrary to the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) is binding on the applicant – whether the Court has jurisdiction to make the declarations sought.

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s10
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) s 20(2)(d), s 26(2)
Land Acquisition Act 1967 (Qld)
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 179(2)(b), s 185, s 186, s 188, s 189, s 192(3), s193(3), s 237, s 266, s 287, s 499, s 512(3)(b), s 515, s 540, s 548, s 550(1)(b),

Bird v Bird [2002] QSC 202 cited
De Ross v General Medical Assessment Tribunal & Anor [2009] QCA 327
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 172 CLR 421; [1972] HCA 61 applied
Munkerman v Skilled Group Limited & Anor [2013] QSC 51
Noosa Shire Council v T M Burke Estates P/L & Anor [1998] QCA 350
Otto v Mackay Sugar Limited [2011] QSC 215 cited
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 cited
ReThe Proprietors Portman Place Building Units Plan Number 4313 (1995) 1 Qd R 525

COUNSEL:

S Deaves for the Applicant

GF Crow QC for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Rees R & Sydney Jones for the Applicant

McInnes Wilson for the Respondent

  1. McMeekin J: The application before me concerns the applicant’s rights under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 (Qld) (“the Act”).[1] The respondent, Queensland Rail, is a self insurer under the Act.

    [1]Reprint 5E

  1. One night, nearly three years ago, the applicant, Mr Costello, was brutally attacked by a co-worker. The two men were employed at the relevant time by Queensland Rail…

Continue reading Costello v Queensland Rail

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Costello v Queensland Rail [2014] QSC 83
Case
[2014] QSC 83
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Costello v Queensland Rail, the applicant sought compensation from the respondent for injuries sustained during employment. The applicant alleged two psychiatric injuries, which were not both acknowledged in the Notice of Assessment issued by the respondent. The Medical Assessment Tribunal subsequently assessed only one of these injuries. The applicant contended that the Notice of Assessment was invalid because it did not encompass all known psychiatric injuries, and subsequently, the Tribunal's assessment was flawed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Notice of Assessment was valid and if the Medical Assessment Tribunal's assessment was binding given the omission of one of the applicant's injuries. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the applicant's acceptance of a lump sum payment, based on the flawed Notice of Assessment, precluded the court from making the declarations sought. The respondent argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to make the declarations sought since the applicant had accepted the lump sum payment, which was made in accordance with the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

The court found that the Notice of Assessment was indeed invalid because it failed to include all known psychiatric injuries, thus making the Tribunal's assessment incomplete. Consequently, the court held that the respondent was not entitled to rely on the flawed assessment. Moreover, the court determined that the applicant's acceptance of the lump sum payment did not bind them from seeking the declarations they sought regarding the unassessed injury. The court found that it did have jurisdiction to make the declarations sought, as the acceptance of the lump sum did not preclude the court from addressing the unassessed injury.

The orders of the court will be that the parties are to agree on and file formal orders within seven days consistently with these reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

The parties to agree on and file formal orders within seven days consistently with these reasons.1.

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.