Gray v WorkCover Queensland - [2000] QSC 418

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Gray v WorkCover Queensland & Anor [2000] QSC 418
PARTIES: PATRICK LIONEL GRAY
(applicant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(first respondent)
SECA CRANES & RIGGING PTY LTD
ACN 068 918 552)
(second respondent)
FILE NO: S7761 of 2000
DIVISION: Trial Division
DELIVERED ON: 22nd November 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 06th October 2000
JUDGE: Holmes J
ORDER: Respondent’s application for declarations dismissed
CATCHWORDS: STATUTES – STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – s 203(2),
s 253(1) WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – Whether
multiple injuries can be assessed separately – Power of
WorkCover to revoke a notice of assessment – Effect of a
conditional damages certificate where multiple injuries fall
under different categories
WorkCover Queensland Act (Qld) 1996 – ss 203, 253(1) and
(3), 265, 280, 305
Acts Interpretation Act (Qld) 1954 – s24AA
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998)
194 CLR 355
Re Robinson unreported QSC 11614/98; 29 January 1999
Re Lankheet unreported QSC 1959/99; 19 March 1999
COUNSEL: R. M. Treston for the applicant
R. A. I. Myers for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Quinlan Miller & Treston for the Applicant WorkCover Queensland for the Respondent

HOLMES J: This is yet another case in which application has been made under s 305 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 for leave to commence proceedings. I have already, on the hearing of the application, granted leave pursuant to that section; what remains to be dealt with is a cross-application by the respondent for declarations.
The plaintiff, Mr Gray, was injured on 11 October 1997 and was paid worker’s compensation benefits under the WorkCover Queensland Act. He underwent an assessment by the Medical Assessment Tribunal on 7 June 1999. On 18 June 1999, WorkCover issued a notice of assessment under s 203 of the WorkCover Queensland Act in relation to four injuries: spinal fractures with paraplegia, a fractured pelvis, a fractured right ankle and bilateral ulnar nerve lesions. These were said to constitute a certificate injury[1]. He was offered lump sum compensation in respect of those injuries, which he accepted.
[1] As defined by s 42 of the WorkCover Queensland Act.
In February 2000, the plaintiff’s solicitors, reviewing the medical evidence which they had obtained, concluded that there were other physical complications of the accident and psychiatric sequelae which had not been addressed in the notice of assessment. The solicitors applied to WorkCover for a damages certificate for all the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. Correspondence ensued about the need for further assessments of the plaintiff. As the expiry date for the limitation period approached, it became apparent that the necessary assessment would not be completed. However, WorkCover, taking the view that the original notice of assessment was invalid because not all Mr Gray’s injuries had been assessed, rescinded it and issued a conditional damages certificate to permit the applicant to commence proceedings. The plaintiff’s solicitors, not being confident of WorkCover’s power to take that course, nonetheless proceeded with an application for leave to proceed. Because of the urgency involved…

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 Gray v WorkCover Queensland

Details

AGLC: Gray v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QSC 418
Case: [2000] QSC 418
Decision Date: 22/11/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gray v WorkCover Queensland, the appellant, Gray, was injured in an accident at work. The dispute involved the assessment of multiple injuries and WorkCover Queensland's power to revoke a notice of assessment. The court was required to decide whether the statutory provisions allowed for the separate assessment of multiple injuries and whether WorkCover Queensland could revoke a notice of assessment. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the statutory provisions in the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 allowed for the separate assessment of multiple injuries and whether WorkCover Queensland could revoke a notice of assessment. The court had to interpret the relevant sections of the Act, including s 203(2) and s 253(1), to determine the correct interpretation of the law. The court also needed to consider the effect of a revocation of a notice of assessment on any prior assessments and entitlements.

The court found that the statutory provisions did not allow for the separate assessment of multiple injuries. It held that the Act required a global assessment of all injuries suffered by the injured party. The court also found that WorkCover Queensland did have the power to revoke a notice of assessment, but this did not affect any prior assessments or entitlements. The court based its decision on a careful reading of the relevant sections of the Act and concluded that the statutory framework did not support the separate assessment of multiple injuries or the revocation of a notice of assessment without consequence.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent's application for declarations was dismissed. The court held that the statutory provisions did not allow for the separate assessment of multiple injuries and that WorkCover Queensland could not revoke a notice of assessment without consequence. The court's decision clarified the interpretation of the relevant sections of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 and provided guidance for future cases involving the assessment of multiple injuries and the revocation of a notice of assessment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Respondent’s application for declarations 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.

CITATION:	Gray v WorkCover Queensland & Anor [2000] QSC 418
PARTIES:	PATRICK LIONEL GRAY (applicant) v WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (first respondent) SECA CRANES & RIGGING PTY LTD ACN 068 918 552) (second respondent)
FILE NO:	S7761 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial Division
DELIVERED ON:	22nd November 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	06th October 2000
JUDGE:	Holmes J
ORDER:	Respondent’s application for declarations dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	STATUTES – STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – s 203(2), s 253(1) WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – Whether multiple injuries can be assessed separately – Power of WorkCover to revoke a notice of assessment – Effect of a conditional damages certificate where multiple injuries fall under different categories
WorkCover Queensland Act (Qld) 1996 – ss 203, 253(1) and (3), 265, 280, 305 Acts Interpretation Act (Qld) 1954 – s24AA
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Re Robinson unreported QSC 11614/98; 29 January 1999 Re Lankheet unreported QSC 1959/99; 19 March 1999
COUNSEL:	R. M. Treston for the applicant R. A. I. Myers for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Quinlan Miller & Treston for the Applicant WorkCover Queensland for the Respondent