Guest v Boyne Smelters Ltd - [2017] QSC 250

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Guest v Boyne Smelters Ltd & Anor [2017] QSC 250

PARTIES:

TANIA LEA GUEST
(Applicant)

v

BOYNE SMELTERS LIMITED
(ACN 010 061 935)
(First Respondent)

And

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(Second Respondent)

FILE NO:

S697 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

2 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

30 October 2017

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDERS:

It is declared that:-1.

the Applicant sustained an injury to her elbows while employed by the First Respondent over a period of time;(a)

the Applicant first consulted a relevant health practitioner within the meaning of s 235A of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) on 19 September 2013;(b)

due to the deeming effect of s 235A of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) as it stood on 19 September 2013 applies to the Applicant’s claim as set out in the Applicant’s Notice of Claim dated 17 June 2015;(c)

The Second Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Application to be assessed. 2.

The parties have liberty to apply on the giving of 3 days’ notice. 3.

If I do not hear from the parties within 7 days the orders set out above are confirmed.4.

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – INTERPRETATION OF ACTS AND PROVISIONS – PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS, LIABILITIES AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ON AMENDMENT – GENERALLY – where the applicant seeks damages from her employer for an injury sustained in the course of her employment – where on 15 October 2013 the legislature introduced a new condition that the worker’s impairment assessment had to exceed 5% – where the applicant does not satisfy the 6% threshold test – where the applicant is precluded from pursuing her damages claim if the threshold applies – where applicant claims she first consulted a relevant health practitioner on 19 September 2013 – whether or not the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), as it stood as at 19 September 2013 applies

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 132, s 235A, s 237

Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370, cited
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384, considered
Parker v The President of the Industrial Court of Queensland (2010) 1 Qd R 255; [2009] QCA 120, considered
WorkCover Queensland & Ors v Padua [2016] QDC 115, cited

COUNSEL:

G F Crow QC for the applicant

S J Deaves for the first and second respondents

SOLICITORS:

Chris Trevor & Associates for the applicant

DibbsBarker for the first and second respondents

McMeekin J:

Introduction

When a “worker” as defined in the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) seeks damages from their employer for an injury sustained in the course of their employment he or she must satisfy certain pre-conditions laid down in the Act. Those pre-conditions…

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 Guest v Boyne Smelters Ltd

Details

AGLC: Guest v Boyne Smelters Ltd [2017] QSC 250
Case: [2017] QSC 250
Decision Date: 2 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Guest v Boyne Smelters Ltd involved the applicant, Guest, who sought damages from her employer, Boyne Smelters Ltd, for an injury she sustained during her employment. The respondent, Boyne Smelters Ltd, argued that Guest's claim was barred due to a legislative amendment that introduced a new condition requiring the worker’s impairment assessment to exceed 5%. Guest did not meet this 6% threshold and thus, under the amended legislation, her claim was invalidated. The dispute centred on the applicability of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) as it stood on 19 September 2013, the date Guest first consulted a relevant health practitioner. The court was required to determine whether the original act or the amended act applied to Guest's claim, which directly affected her eligibility to pursue damages.

The court had to decide whether the date of Guest's first consultation with a relevant health practitioner, 19 September 2013, was before or after the legislative amendment came into effect. The primary issue was the interpretation of the statute and the application of the deeming provision in section 235A of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). This involved examining the timing of the legislative change and the effect of the deeming provision on Guest's claim. The court needed to clarify whether the original act or the amended act governed the applicant’s claim, particularly considering the legislative intent and the impact of the amendment on existing claims.

In its reasoning, the court noted that Guest's injury occurred over a period of time, but her first consultation with a health practitioner was on 19 September 2013. The court held that due to the deeming effect of section 235A, the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) as it stood on 19 September 2013 applied to Guest's claim. The court found that the applicant's claim was not barred by the legislative amendment and that the original act was applicable. Consequently, the court declared that the applicant's claim was valid under the original act, and the second respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application. The court also provided the parties with liberty to apply for further orders if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

It is declared that:-1.

the Applicant sustained an injury to her elbows while employed by the First Respondent over a period of time;(a)

the Applicant first consulted a relevant health practitioner within the meaning of s 235A of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) on 19 September 2013;(b)

due to the deeming effect of s 235A of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) as it stood on 19 September 2013 applies to the Applicant’s claim as set out in the Applicant’s Notice of Claim dated 17 June 2015;(c)

The Second Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Application to be assessed. 2.

The parties have liberty to apply on the giving of 3 days’ notice. 3.

If I do not hear from the parties within 7 days the orders set out above are confirmed.4.

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:	Guest v Boyne Smelters Ltd & Anor [2017] QSC 250
PARTIES:	TANIA LEA GUEST (Applicant) v BOYNE SMELTERS LIMITED (ACN 010 061 935) (First Respondent) And WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (Second Respondent)
FILE NO:	S697 of 2017
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	2 November 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	30 October 2017
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDERS:	It is declared that:-1. the Applicant sustained an injury to her elbows while employed by the First Respondent over a period of time;(a) *the Applicant first consulted a relevant health practitioner within the meaning of s 235A of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act* 2003 (Qld) on 19 September 2013;*(b) due to the deeming effect of s 235A of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act* 2003 (Qld), the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) as it stood on 19 September 2013 applies to the Applicant’s claim as set out in the Applicant’s Notice of Claim dated 17 June 2015;(c) The Second Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Application to be assessed. 2. The parties have liberty to apply on the giving of 3 days’ notice. 3. If I do not hear from the parties within 7 days the orders set out above are confirmed.4.
CATCHWORDS:	STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – INTERPRETATION OF ACTS AND PROVISIONS – PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS, LIABILITIES AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ON AMENDMENT – GENERALLY – where the applicant seeks damages from her employer for an injury sustained in the course of her employment – where on 15 October 2013 the legislature introduced a new condition that the worker’s impairment assessment had to exceed 5% – where the applicant does not satisfy the 6% threshold test – where the applicant is precluded from pursuing her damages claim if the threshold applies – where applicant claims she first consulted a relevant health practitioner on 19 September 2013 – whether or not the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), as it stood as at 19 September 2013 applies Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 132, s 235A, s 237 Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370, cited CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384, considered Parker v The President of the Industrial Court of Queensland (2010) 1 Qd R 255; [2009] QCA 120, considered WorkCover Queensland & Ors v Padua [2016] QDC 115, cited
COUNSEL:	G F Crow QC for the applicant S J Deaves for the first and second respondents
SOLICITORS:	Chris Trevor & Associates for the applicant DibbsBarker for the first and second respondents