Fairhurst v the Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2015] QIRC 197

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Fairhurst v the Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] QIRC 197
PARTIES:	Fairhurst, Derek (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2015/227
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of the Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	19 November 2015
HEARING DATES:	16 October 2015
MEMBER:	Deputy President O'Connor
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The decision of the respondent dated 8 July 2015 is affirmed. 3. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of a further application to this Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF THE REGULATOR – Whether a claim for Workers' Compensation was lodged in time – Where the time that the entitlement to compensation arose was not in dispute - Where the claim was lodged outside of 6 months after the entitlement to compensation arose – Whether the Appellant demonstrated that there was a reasonable cause for the delay – Where there was no reasonable cause - Appeal dismissed.
CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, ss 131, 141, 151 Black v the City of South Melbourne (1963) VR 34 Blackwood v Toward [2015] ICQ 008 Churchill v QCOMP Quinlivan v Portland Harbour Trust (1963) VR 25
APPEARANCES:	Mr A. Stobie, Counsel instructed by Turner Freeman Lawyers Mr J.W. Merrell, Counsel directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Decision from the bench

This is an appeal against a decision of the regulator dated 8 July 2015, that the appellant failed to make a valid and enforceable application pursuant to s 131 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ("the Act"). Section 131 of the Act provides that:
An application for compensation is valid and enforceable only if the application is lodged by the claimant within 6 months after the entitlement to compensation arises.
Pursuant to s 131(5)(c) of the Act:
An insurer may waive subsection (1) for a particular application if the insurer is satisfied that a claimant’s failure to lodge the application was due to a reasonable cause.
Section 141 of the Act, being the time from which compensation is payable, relevantly provides that:
The entitlement to compensation for an injury arises on the day the worker is assessed by a doctor; or if the injury is a minor injury – a nurse practitioner acting in accordance with the workers’ compensation certificate protocol; or (c) if the injury is an oral injury and the worker attends a dentist – the dentist.
In the matter of Blackwood v Toward[1], a relatively recent decision of the Industrial Court of Queensland, Martin J, the President of the Court, in regard to the proper construction to be given to section 141(1) of the Act said as follows:
Section 141 is concerned for the time from which compensation is payable for an injury as defined. The compensation may be in one or more of the types available under Chapter 3 or 4 of the Act. To confine the…

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 Fairhurst v the 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: [2015] QIRC 197
Decision Date: 19 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fairhurst v the Workers' Compensation Regulator involved the appellant, Fairhurst, challenging the decision of the respondent, the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which dismissed his claim for compensation. Fairhurst sought compensation for injuries he sustained during his employment, but the Regulator denied his claim on the basis that it was lodged outside the six-month statutory period. Fairhurst argued that despite the late filing, there was a reasonable cause for the delay. The dispute was ultimately brought before the court to determine whether Fairhurst's claim was lodged within the requisite time and if he could demonstrate a reasonable cause for the delay.

The primary legal issue the court needed to decide was whether Fairhurst's claim for workers' compensation, lodged outside the statutory six-month period, was justified by a reasonable cause for the delay. The court had to examine the circumstances surrounding the delay and determine if Fairhurst could provide sufficient grounds to excuse the late filing of his claim. The court also needed to assess whether the Regulator's decision to dismiss the claim was legally sound and in accordance with the applicable statutes and precedents.

In its reasoning, the court found that the date when Fairhurst's entitlement to compensation arose was not in question, but the claim was indeed lodged beyond the six-month statutory period. The court further determined that Fairhurst did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in lodging his claim. The court concluded that the Regulator's decision to dismiss the claim was justified and upheld the decision, dismissing Fairhurst's appeal. Consequently, the court affirmed the Regulator's decision dated 8 July 2015 and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the respondent dated 8 July 2015 is affirmed.

3. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of a further application to this Commission.

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.