Devi v Workers Compensation Regulator

The case of Devi v Workers Compensation Regulator concerns the applicant’s application for an extension of time to review a decision of the respondent regarding the refusal of compensation for a psychiatric or psychological disorder. The applicant, who suffered burns to her right leg in the course of her employment, had initially applied for worker’s compensation benefits under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). After WorkCover accepted the applicant’s application, it subsequently rejected her claim for compensation for a psychiatric or psychological disorder. The applicant then applied to the respondent for an extension of time to review this decision, which was ultimately refused. The applicant subsequently applied to the Court for a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the respondent had taken into account irrelevant considerations, failed to take into account relevant considerations, exercised a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits, or made an error of law in refusing the applicant’s request for an extension of time. The applicant argued that the respondent’s decision was flawed on these grounds. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legal test and that only relevant considerations were taken into account.

The Court examined the relevant statutory provision, s 543(3) of the Act, which permits an extension of time to be granted if special circumstances exist. The Court noted that the decision in Carmody was of little assistance in interpreting this provision, as it concerned a different statutory provision that gave the Court a broad discretion. The Court emphasised that s 543(3) does not provide a broad discretion to grant extensions if it is “just” to do so, but rather only permits an extension if special circumstances exist. The Court concluded that the respondent must first determine whether special circumstances exist and that it is not bound to grant an extension even if such circumstances are found. This conclusion aligns with the observations made by Martin J in Blackwood v Pearce. The Court also noted that the legislative amendment, which permits an application for extension of time to be made at any time, does not affect the observations made in Blackwood.

In summary, the Court found that the respondent’s decision was not an improper exercise of power, and the application for statutory order of review was dismissed. The Court will hear the parties regarding costs.