Foster v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2018] QIRC 97

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Foster v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2018] QIRC 097
PARTIES:	Workers' Compensation Regulator (Applicant) v Julie Foster (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2018/59
PROCEEDING:	Application in existing proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	18 July 2018
HEARING DATE:	18 July 2018
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	O'Connor DP Brisbane
ORDER:	1. The application is granted; and *2. Pursuant to r 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Rules) 2011, I dismiss the proceedings in matter WC/2018/59; and* 3. I make no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPLICATION TO DISMISS – where the respondent failed to comply with directions in an appeal – where the respondent has not taken any steps to progress appeal – where the respondent has failed to attend hearings – whether discretion to dismiss proceeding is enlivened
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 541 Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 r 6, r 45 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 O’Sullivan v Farrer (1989) 168 CLR 210 Quaedvlieg and Ors v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] QIC 73; 180 QGIG 1209 Quinlan v Rothwell& Anor [2001] QCA 176
APPEARANCES:	Ms Joanne Webb for the applicant No appearance for the respondent

Reasons for Decision

The Workers' Compensation Regulator has made an application to this Commission pursuant to s 541(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 seeking an order that the appeal filed by Julie Madonna Foster (Matter No. WC/2018/59) be dismissed pursuant to rule 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011. The regulator seeks no order for costs.
I refer to and extract from the affidavit of Joanne Webb of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 13 July 2018 the following chronology of events:
a.    On or about 21 June 2017, the Respondent in this application (the appellant in WC/2018/59 and hereafter referred to as "Ms Foster") lodged an application for compensation with the Insurer in respect of a psychological/psychiatric injury said to have occurred on or about 24 April 2017.
b.    On or about 13 October 2017, the Insurer accepted Ms Foster's application for compensation for a psychological/psychiatric injury.
c.    On 10 January 2018, Grace College, the Employer, sought a review of the Insurer's decision to accept the claim.
d.    On 20 February 2018, the Review Unit of the Regulator set aside the Insurer's decision and determined that Ms Foster's application for compensation was one for rejection.
e.    On 19 March 2018, Ms Foster, by way of her legal representatives, lodged a notice of appeal (the notice) in the Commission. A copy of this Notice WC/2018/59 is contained on the Commission file. At the time that the Notice filed, Ms Foster was represented by Hall Payne Lawyers.
f.     On 23 March 2018, the Industrial Registry of the Commission (the Registry) issued a directions order requiring the parties to take certain steps, the first of which was for Ms Foster to supply to the Applicant a list of documents by 4:00pm on 11 April 2018. A copy of this directions…

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 Foster v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Foster v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2018] QIRC 97
Case: [2018] QIRC 97
Decision Date: 18 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Foster v Workers' Compensation Regulator was a case before the Fair Work Commission where the applicant sought the dismissal of an appeal made by the respondent to a decision concerning workers' compensation. The applicant, Foster, argued that the respondent, the Workers' Compensation Regulator, had failed to comply with directions, had not taken any steps to progress the appeal, and had not attended the scheduled hearings. Foster contended that the respondent's conduct had been vexatious and oppressive, warranting the exercise of the Commission's discretion to dismiss the proceedings. The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's non-compliance with directions, lack of progress in the appeal, and absence from hearings justified the dismissal of the appeal under the relevant procedural rules.

The Fair Work Commission found that the respondent had indeed failed to comply with the Commission's directions, had not made any efforts to advance the appeal, and had not attended any of the scheduled hearings. The Commission considered the respondent's conduct to be unreasonable and oppressive, leading to significant delays and costs for the applicant. The Commission noted that the respondent had not provided any satisfactory explanation for its actions or inactions, which further supported the applicant's claim. The Commission held that the discretion to dismiss the proceedings was indeed activated by the respondent's conduct, as it had impeded the fair and efficient resolution of the appeal. The Commission exercised its discretion under the relevant rule, finding that dismissal was an appropriate remedy given the circumstances.

Consequently, the Commission granted the application to dismiss the proceedings. It dismissed the appeal in matter WC/2018/59 and made no order as to costs. The decision underscores the importance of compliance with procedural directions and the potential consequences for parties who fail to engage in the appeal process in a timely and responsible manner.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is granted; and

2. Pursuant to r 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Rules) 2011, I dismiss the proceedings in matter WC/2018/59; and

3. I make no order as to costs.

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.