Erez v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 246

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Erez v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 246
PARTIES:	Erez, Adi (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO.:	WC/2025/74
PROCEEDING:	Application for legal representation
DELIVERED ON:	12 September 2025
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Power IC On the papers
ORDER:	The Application in existing proceedings to revoke the grant of leave for the Respondent to be represented by a lawyer in accordance with s 552B(b) is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPLICATION BY RESPONDENT FOR LEAVE TO BE REPRESENTED BY A LAWYER – appeal against review decision of Respondent – where Respondent has applied for leave to be legally represented under s552B of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where leave granted – where Applicant seeks leave to be revoked – factors to be considered by the Commission in determining whether to grant leave – application dismissed
LEGISLATION:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 552B
CASES:	Peck v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 189 State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet) v Dawson [2021] QIRC 118 Wanninayake v Queensland (Dept of Natural Resources and Mines) [2014] QIRC 079

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

On 11 April 2025, Ms Adi Erez ('the Appellant') filed an appeal pursuant to s 550(4) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('WCR Act') against a decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Respondent') to reject the Appellant's application for compensation.
On 14 April 2025, the Respondent, sought leave, pursuant to s 552B of the WCR Act, to be legally represented in these proceedings.
On 15 April 2025, Vice-President O'Connor issued an order that leave for the Respondent be granted pursuant to s 552B(b) of the WCR Act.

On 2 June 2025, the Appellant sent an email to the Registry advising of her objection to the order granting the Respondent's legal representation in this matter.

On 17 June 2025 the Appellant filed a 'Form 4 – Application in existing proceedings' and Affidavit material outlining multiple submissions in relation to the proceeding. Part of the application and affidavit material sought an order removing the grant of leave that the Respondent be legally represented.

After a telephone mention held on 23 June 2025, a second Further Directions Order was issued directing parties to provide submissions in respect of the Appellant's application, with order 3 outlining the decision would be dealt with on the papers.
Legislative framework
Section 552B of the WCR Act relevantly provides:
552B Legal representation at appeal or conference
A party may be represented by a lawyer at a conference called under section 552A or at the hearing of an appeal, but only with—
(a)the agreement of the parties; or
(b)the appeal body's leave.

In Peck v Workers' Compensation Regulator ('Peck'), Deputy President Merrell outlined the following when considering the discretion that may be exercised pursuant to s 552B:[1]
Because the discretion is unconfined, the factors that may be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion are similarly unconfined, except…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Erez v Workers' Compensation Regulator and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QIRC 246
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Erez v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the court was presented with an appeal regarding the grant of leave for the respondent to be legally represented under section 552B of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The applicant sought to revoke the leave granted to the respondent, which allowed them to be represented by a lawyer in the proceedings. The primary focus of the case was on the criteria that the Commission should consider when determining whether to grant leave for legal representation in workers' compensation cases.

The legal issues that the court was required to address included the proper interpretation and application of section 552B of the Act, as well as the factors that the Commission should take into account when deciding whether to allow the respondent to be legally represented. The court had to consider the nature of the dispute, the complexity of the issues involved, the respondent's ability to understand and participate in the proceedings, and the potential impact of the respondent being legally represented on the fairness and efficiency of the process.

The court's reasoning and outcome involved a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions of the Act and previous case law. It was determined that the Commission had correctly exercised its discretion in granting leave to the respondent to be legally represented, taking into account all relevant factors. The applicant's arguments for revoking the leave were found to be insufficient, and the application was dismissed. The court emphasised that the decision to grant leave should be based on a balanced assessment of the various factors, with a focus on ensuring that the proceedings are conducted fairly and efficiently.

In summary, the court upheld the grant of leave for the respondent to be legally represented in the workers' compensation proceedings. The application to revoke this leave was dismissed, as the Commission had appropriately exercised its discretion in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and case law. The decision underscores the importance of a balanced and fair approach when determining whether to allow legal representation in workers' compensation cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in existing proceedings to revoke the grant of leave for the Respondent to be represented by a lawyer in accordance with s 552B(b) 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.