Deng v Q-Comp

Case [2011] QSC 191


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Deng v Q-Comp [2011] QSC 191

PARTIES:

AQUEEN TENG DENG
(applicant)
v
Q-COMP
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

4258 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 June 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 June 2011

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ORDER:

  1. Pursuant to s 12 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) the application for a statutory order of review filed 19 May 2011 is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent, Q-Comp, applies pursuant to s 12 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) to dismiss the applicant’s application for a statutory order of review – where the applicant alleges he was injured at work and made an application for compensation against his employer – where the self insurer rejected the application – where the applicant sought a review of that decision pursuant to s 542 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) approximately two and a half years outside the time limit – where Q-Comp declined to conduct a review – where the applicant appealed to the Industrial Magistrate – where Q-Comp’s decision was set aside and directions made – where Q-Comp appealed that decision in the Industrial Court – where the decision to set aside the decision of Q-Comp was upheld – where the matter was remitted back to Q-Comp – where Q-Comp refused the application – where the applicant then brought an application in the Supreme Court for a statutory order of review – whether the application to this Court should be dismissed – whether adequate provision is made by a law under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review.

Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 265(1)(d)

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 12, s 542
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 548, s 549

Nelson v Q-Comp [2004] QSC 167
Stubberfield v Webster [1996] 2 Qd R 211

Turner v Valuers’ Registration Committee of Queensland [2001] 2 Qd R 100

COUNSEL:

K F Boulton for the applicant/respondent

RN Traves SC with P B O’Neill for the respondent/applicant

SOLICITORS:

Hunter Solicitors Pty Ltd for the applicant/respondent

Q-Comp for the respondent/applicant

  1. On 19 May 2011 the applicant Aqueen Teng Deng (Mr Deng) made an application to this Court for a statutory order of review. That application was to review an undated decision of the respondent Q-Comp which was received on 28 April 2011.  Pursuant to that decision Q-Comp declined to review a decision by the self insurer, Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd (AMH), to dismiss the applicant’s application for statutory workers’ compensation benefits dated 31 January 2007.

  1. The basis of that application is that there had been a breach of natural justice in relation to the making of that decision.  In particular it was alleged that Q-Comp failed to give Mr Deng a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and be heard. It was also alleged that the decision maker had rejected the relevance…

Continue reading Deng v Q-Comp

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Deng v Q-Comp [2011] QSC 191
Case
[2011] QSC 191
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Deng, filed an application for a statutory order of review against the respondent, Q-Comp, alleging that he was injured at work and his application for compensation was rejected. The application for review was made approximately two and a half years after the time limit prescribed by the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). Q-Comp declined to conduct a review, and the applicant appealed to the Industrial Magistrate. The Industrial Magistrate set aside Q-Comp’s decision and made directions, a decision which was upheld on appeal by Q-Comp to the Industrial Court. The matter was remitted back to Q-Comp, who again refused the application. Deng then brought an application in the Supreme Court for a statutory order of review.
The legal issues before the court were whether the application to the Supreme Court should be dismissed, and whether adequate provision is made by a law under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review. The court found that the application for review was not made within the time limit prescribed by the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), and that the applicant had not demonstrated any circumstances that would justify the delay in making the application. The court held that the application was not made within the time limit prescribed by the relevant legislation and that the applicant had not demonstrated any special circumstances that would justify the delay in making the application. The court dismissed the application for a statutory order of review.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 12 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) the application for a statutory order of review filed 19 May 2011 is dismissed

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.