Evans v Q-Comp

Case [2011] QMC 42


MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Evans v Q-COMP [2011] QMC 042

PARTIES:

MATTHEW JOHN EVANS

(appellant)

v

Q-COMP

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

MAG85098/10(1)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Court – Industrial Magistrate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of Q-COMP

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 August 2011, 23 August 2011

MAGISTRATE:

Lee G

ORDER:

The decision of Q-COMP is confirmed. This means the appeal is not successful.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW - WORKERS COMPENSATION - personal injury – psychological injury – whether arose out of or in the course of management action – whether management action reasonable and taken in a reasonable way

INDUSTRIAL LAW - WORKERS COMPENSATION – application for review – merits review – de novo hearing – whether management action reasonable and taken in a reasonable way – who bears onus of proof in that respect

Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32(5)

Aigner v Q-COMP, C/2011/2 Queensland Industrial Court (16 May 2011)

Darling Island Stevedoring & Lighterage Co Ltd v Jacobsen [1945] HCA 22; (1945) 70 CLR 635

Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118

Ivey v WorkCover Queensland [1999] QIC 65; (1999) 162 QGIG 392

Parker v The President of the Industrial Court of Queensland & Q-COMP [2008] QSC 175; [2009] QCA 120

Pye v The Metropolitan Coal Co Ltd [1934] HCA 9; (1934) 50 CLR 614 and on appeal to the Privy Council at (1936) 55 CLR 138

Q-COMP v Hohn (2008) 187 QGIG 139

Q-COMP v Rowe [2009] QIC 17

Rossmuller v Q-COMP, C/2009/36 Queensland Industrial Court (5 February 2010)

Vines v Djordjevitch [1955] HCA 19; (1955) 91 CLR 512

COUNSEL:

G Cross for appellant

S Gray for respondent

SOLICITORS:

AK Compensation Lawyers for appellant

Respondent on own behalf

  1. By applications dated 14 and 15 October 2009 Mr Evans applied for workers compensation[1] in respect of a psychological injury sustained during his employment with Dellgale Pty Ltd (Dellgale) as a welder. In his handwritten application


    (exhibit 1) he states this injury developed over a period of time whereas in the typed application (exhibit 2) it was not expressed as developing over a period of time but having occurred on 14 October 2009 when his employment was terminated. I note the employer’s report exhibited “ME 14” to Mr Evans’ affidavit sworn


    22 August 2011 (exhibit 6) says the injury happened “Over time from the stress of getting consumables and uniforms”.

    [1] Exhibits 1 (handwritten) & 2 (typed); exhibit 1 also referred to a physical injury i.e. “right hand been sore over 5 weeks”;  

  2. On 26 November 2009 the claim was rejected by WorkCover[2] primarily on the basis that, although accepting Mr Evans sustained a personal injury in the nature of work related stress, it was excluded from the definition of injury under section 32(5) of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) because it arose out of or in the course of reasonable management action taken in…

Continue reading Evans v Q-Comp

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Evans v Q-COMP [2011] QMC 42
Case
[2011] QMC 42
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Evans brought an appeal against the decision of Q-Comp, the respondent, which declined to compensate him for a psychological injury sustained as a result of a management decision. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The dispute centred on whether the psychological injury arose out of or in the course of a management action and, if so, whether that action was reasonable and conducted in a reasonable manner. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate standard of proof and the allocation of the onus of proof in relation to these matters.

The primary legal issue was whether the management action was reasonable and conducted in a reasonable way. The court examined the nature of the management decision, the context in which it was made, and the manner in which it was implemented. The court also considered the onus of proof and whether it lay with the appellant or the respondent. The court held that the onus of proof rested with the respondent, Q-Comp, to establish that the management action was reasonable and conducted in a reasonable way. The court further held that the respondent had discharged this onus. The court concluded that the appeal was not successful and the decision of Q-Comp was confirmed.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the management action was reasonable in the circumstances and was conducted in a reasonable manner. The court also found that the onus of proof rested with Q-Comp and that Q-Comp had discharged this onus. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of Q-Comp was confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of Q-COMP is confirmed. This means the appeal is not successful.

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.