Eggers v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2024] QIRC 185

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Eggers v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 185
PARTIES:	Eggers, Julie Ann (Applicant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	B/2024/38
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave to take further action on a lapsed proceeding
DELIVERED ON:	30 July 2024
HEARING DATE:	14 June 2024 (Respondent's Submissions) 18 July 2024 (Applicant's Submissions in Reply)
HEARD AT:	On the papers
MEMBER:	Pidgeon IC
ORDERS:	The orders contained in paragraph [138] of these reasons for decision.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL LAPSED – APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION ON A LAPSED PROCEEDING – where the Applicant failed to take action on her appeal for significant periods of time – where the Applicant only made progress on her appeal when prompted – where the appeal lapsed pursuant to r 230(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) – where the Applicant claimed that delays in progressing the appeal could be explained – consideration of prejudice to the Respondent – consideration of prejudice more generally – where the application for leave to proceed is dismissed – consideration of whether s 541 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) is enlivened – consideration of whether there is jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal – where the appeal is dismissed – where submissions on the costs of the application are to be heard
LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS:	Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 484, 485, 541 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) rr 230, 231 Industrial Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2022 (Qld) s 65(2) Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 552A
CASES:	Aqwell Pty Ltd v BJC Drilling Services Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 413 Crisp v Queensland Law Group – A New Direction Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 156 Gambaro v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] ICQ 005 Jonathan v Mangera & Anor [2016] QCA 86 Jonathan v Mangera [2015] QDC 195

Reasons for Decision
Introduction

Ms Eggers ('the Applicant') applies to have a previous matter before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission'), WC/2019/146, an appeal against the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Matter'), 're-opened' pursuant to s 485 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act').
When filing this application for the Matter to be 're-opened', the Applicant has proceeded under the misapprehension that the Matter had been struck out. In fact, the Matter had lapsed, which required the Applicant to apply for leave to proceed pursuant to r 230(2) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the IR Tribunals Rules') rather than for leave to re-open the matter under the relevant sections of the IR Act.
Where the Applicant's submissions refer to 're-opening' the proceedings, and erroneously cite ss 484 and 485 of the IR Act, I accept that this relates to the Applicant's application for leave to proceed.
This approach has been adopted by the Respondent in its submissions.

History of Proceedings – WC/2019/146

I have summarised a timeline of the Matter the subject of this application:
·The Matter was filed on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Eggers v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Eggers v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 185
Case: [2024] QIRC 185
Decision Date: 30 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Eggers v Workers' Compensation Regulator involves an application by Ms Eggers, the appellant, to take further action on her lapsed appeal against a workers' compensation decision. The dispute reached the Industrial Relations Court of Queensland, where the court considered the merits of Ms Eggers' application and ultimately dismissed it. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the application for leave to proceed with the lapsed appeal should be granted and whether the appeal itself could be revived. The court also examined whether any prejudice to the respondent, the Workers' Compensation Regulator, resulted from the delays and whether the appeal had indeed lapsed due to inactivity under rule 230(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld).

The court meticulously reviewed the procedural history of the appeal, noting that Ms Eggers had been repeatedly prompted to progress her appeal but only did so when specifically instructed to do so during a conference. The court highlighted that Ms Eggers did not attend the second conference that was scheduled to ensure all matters were addressed before proceeding to hearing. The court found that the appeal had indeed lapsed due to Ms Eggers' failure to take timely action, as mandated by the relevant rules. Additionally, the court considered the potential prejudice to the respondent and found that Ms Eggers had not adequately explained the delays, which contributed to the overall prejudice. The court concluded that granting the application would not serve the interests of justice, and thus dismissed the application for leave to proceed with the lapsed appeal. The court also found that it had jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal outright due to the significant delays and inactivity on the part of the appellant.

The court's decision was grounded in the procedural rules and the need to maintain the efficiency of the tribunal system. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the delays and lack of progress on Ms Eggers' part warranted this outcome. Furthermore, the court ordered that submissions on the costs of the application would be heard separately, indicating that the respondent could seek reimbursement for costs incurred due to the appellant's delays. This decision underscores the importance of timely and proactive engagement in legal proceedings and the consequences of failing to adhere to procedural requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders contained in paragraph [138] of these reasons for decision.

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

Section 541 of the IR Act relevantly provides:541 Decisions generally In her Form 2 – application in existing proceedings filed in the Industrial Registry on 24 April 2024, Ms Eggers states words to the effect that she was informed by the Registry on 10 April 2024 that her matter WC/2019/146 had lapsed on 8 March 2023. Ms Eggers recalled that at a conference[1] she attended with me on 21 April 2021, I said words to the effect that a second conference would be required before the Matter could proceed to hearing. I have reviewed the transcript of that conference. At the end of the conference I noted that Ms Eggers had requested an additional four to six weeks to consider whether: ·she had more to add to her list of documents; ·whether she wished to amend her list of witnesses, and;·the potential for a further amended statement of facts and contentions to be filed. [1] Specifically, Ms Eggers attended a conference provided for under s 552A of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the WCR Act'). During the conference, I also noted that once Ms Eggers had considered those matters, the Respondent would inform the Registry how much longer it would require to "make any response necessary or do any following up".[2] I also said "once we're ready to go, and we think we're now ready to refer it to a Commissioner to set down for hearing, I think we should have another conference, just to make sure that we've covered everything off".[3] I also indicated to the parties that any subsequent conference could be conducted by phone.[4][2] T1-8 LL46–47[3] T1-9 LL1-3[4] T1-8 L36–T1-9 L8. I have reviewed the file and note that on 18 February 2022, Ms Eggers filed an amended list of witnesses. On Wednesday 2 March, a further amended list of witnesses was filed. On 7 March 2022, a form 9B Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions was filed. Ms Eggers says that she did not receive any correspondence compelling her to attend a second conference. I can confirm that I have not listed a second conference for the Matter. Ms Eggers says that she has not received a 'show cause' notice. I can confirm that Ms Eggers has not been issued with a show cause notice because there is no statutory provision mandating this to occur. Ms Eggers annexes Schedule 1 to her application. I have summarised her submissions in relation to each sub-reg of r 230(3) of the IR Tribunals Rules below from [15] – [26]. The steps taken in the proceeding Ms Eggers refers to a range of matters which have occurred in relation to the Workers' Compensation Review decision. Ms Eggers refers to an email she says she sent to "to Adriana Southern WC, Tenniker Webster WCR and others in regard to WCR Reasons for Decisions dated 19 December 2018". Ms Eggers also provides some content from the written reply she says she received from Adriana Southern dated 21 January 2019. Ms Eggers says that on 20 May 2019, she received information regarding a statement made by Ms Gayle Tindal ('the injured worker') and that Ms Eggers' request for an unredacted copy was denied.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.