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:
- 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 549Nelson v Q-Comp [2004] QSC 167
Stubberfield v Webster [1996] 2 Qd R 211Turner 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
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.
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
- AGLC
- Deng v Q-Comp [2011] QSC 191
- Case
- [2011] QSC 191
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.