Deanne Maree King v Workers' Compensation Regulator

[2019] QIRC 134

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Deanne Maree King v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 134

PARTIES:  

Deanne Maree King
(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2018/221

PROCEEDING:

Application in existing proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2019

HEARING DATES: 

23 August 2019

MEMBERS:

HEARD AT:

O'Connor VP

Brisbane

ORDERS:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION –APPLICATION IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS – admissibility of evidence – similar fact evidence – where Respondent seeks orders that the Appellant be precluded from calling a witness on the basis that evidence is not relevant and prejudicial – whether Commission is able to make an objective assessment of relevance of the evidence

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – RULES OF EVIDENCE – Commission is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence – function and purpose of rules of evidence generally – rules of evidence should only be departed from in the clearest of circumstances and where the interests of justice require it to be done.  

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 531

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32

CASES:

APPEARANCES:

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321

DF Lyons Pty Limited v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1991) 28 FCR 597

Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2004) 143 IR 354

Mister Figgins Pty Ltd v Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd (1981) 36 ALR 23

R v The War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228

Qantas Airlines Limited v Gubbins (1992) 28 NSWLR 26

Rodriguez v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2002) 66 ALD 579

Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2014) 141 ALD 540

St Clair v Timtalla Pty Ltd & Anor [2010] QSC 296

Wong v Taitung Australia Pty Ltd (2017) FWCFB 990
Mr M Horvath of Counsel instructed by Compensation Partners Lawyers for the Appellant.

Ms H Blattman of Counsel, instructed directly by the Respondent

Reasons for Decision

1. The Regulator has filed an application in existing proceedings seeking an order that the Appellant be not permitted to lead evidence from witness Ms Amanda Treloar.

2. By way of background, Ms Deanne King, the Appellant, lodged an application for compensation with the Coles Group for a work-related injury described in the application for compensation as "stress". The Appellant's application for compensation was considered by Coles as the self-insurer in relation to two stressors. The first involved an industrial dispute between the Appellant and her employer over her rate of pay. The second involved the Appellant's working relationship with Ms Sarah Hawker, the Store Manager which the Appellant alleged amounted to "bullying and harassment". Coles Group investigated both claims and concluded that the actions taken constituted reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.

3. The decision of the self-insurer was reviewed by the Regulator and it was determined that the Appellant's claim was excluded by virtue of s 32(5). It is against that decision that the Appellant now appeals to this Commission.

1. The Appellant was employed in the position of a Night Fill…