Healy v Logan City Council - [2016] QCA 314

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Healy v Logan City Council [2016] QCA 314

PARTIES:

MICHELLE MAREE HEALY
(applicant)
v
LOGAN CITY COUNCIL
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2248 of 2016
DC No 143 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – [2016] QDC 15

DELIVERED ON:

25 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 July 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Burns J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the orders in the District Court limited to the question concerning the proper construction of section 279(1) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

2. Dismiss the appeal.

3. Order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application and the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

INTERPRETATION – GENERAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENTS – GENERAL MATTERS – where the applicant applies for leave to appeal against an order made by a judge of the District Court pursuant to s 287 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the Act’) that the respondent comply with its obligations under s 279(1) of that Act by providing the applicant with certain information but otherwise dismissing the applicant’s application – where the applicant contends that the duty to cooperate expressed in the introductory words of s 279(1) of the Act extends to information which is not comprehended within s 279(1)(b) – where the applicant further submits that the phrase ‘in particular by’ means ‘especially’ – where the applicant submits that the narrow construction preferred by the primary judge did not give effect to the applicable objects of the Act – where the respondent submits that the primary judge’s interpretation of s 279 is correct – whether the primary judge’s construction of s 279 is correct

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 45(1), s 47
WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 2001
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 279(1), s 287

Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd v McPaul [2006] 1 Qd R 201; [2005] QSC 278, cited
Cameron v RACQ Insurance Limited [2013] QSC 124, cited
Canadian National Railways v Canadian Steamship Lines Ltd [1945] AC 204, cited
Gitsham v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2003] 2 Qd R 251; [2002] QCA 310, cited
Healy v Logan City Council [2016] QDC 15, related
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Parker [1966] AC 141, cited
Maguire v Woolworths Ltd, Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, SC 9924 of 2009, Peter Lyons J, 25 September 2009, cited
Pepper v Attorney-General (Qld) [No 2] [2008] 2 Qd R 353; [2008] QCA 207, cited
Rice Growers Co-Operative Mills Ltd v Bannerman (1981) 56 FLR 443; [1981] FCA 211, cited
RSL (Queensland) War Veterans Homes Limited & Ors v Palma [2010] QSC 222, cited
Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2005] 1 Qd R 204,

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 Healy v Logan City Council 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: [2016] QCA 314
Decision Date: 25 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Healy v Logan City Council, the applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the District Court, which had been made pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The applicant argued that the duty to cooperate in providing information, as expressed in section 279(1) of the Act, was broader than the specific information mentioned in section 279(1)(b). They also argued that the phrase 'in particular by' should be interpreted to mean 'especially', rather than narrowly. The respondent, Logan City Council, contended that the primary judge’s interpretation of section 279 was correct.

The primary legal issue was whether the District Court judge's interpretation of section 279 of the Act was correct. The applicant argued that the duty to cooperate was not limited to the specific information listed in section 279(1)(b) and that the phrase 'in particular by' should be given a broader interpretation. The court had to determine whether the primary judge’s interpretation correctly reflected the purpose and objects of the Act.

The court held that the District Court judge's interpretation of section 279 of the Act was correct. The court found that the duty to cooperate was limited to the specific information listed in section 279(1)(b) and that the phrase 'in particular by' did not extend the scope of the duty beyond what was explicitly stated. The court concluded that the primary judge's interpretation gave effect to the objects of the Act, and therefore, the applicant's appeal was dismissed. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application and the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the orders in the District Court limited to the question concerning the proper construction of section 279(1) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

2. Dismiss the appeal.

3. Order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application and the appeal.

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:	Healy v Logan City Council [2016] QCA 314
PARTIES:	MICHELLE MAREE HEALY (applicant) v LOGAN CITY COUNCIL (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 2248 of 2016 DC No 143 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – [2016] QDC 15
DELIVERED ON:	25 November 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 July 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison JJA and Burns J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the orders in the District Court limited to the question concerning the proper construction of section 279(1) of the *Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act* 2003 (Qld). 2. Dismiss the appeal. 3. Order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application and the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	INTERPRETATION – GENERAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENTS – GENERAL MATTERS – where the applicant applies for leave to appeal against an order made by a judge of the District Court pursuant to s 287 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the Act’) that the respondent comply with its obligations under s 279(1) of that Act by providing the applicant with certain information but otherwise dismissing the applicant’s application – where the applicant contends that the duty to cooperate expressed in the introductory words of s 279(1) of the Act extends to information which is not comprehended within s 279(1)(b) – where the applicant further submits that the phrase ‘in particular by’ means ‘especially’ – where the applicant submits that the narrow construction preferred by the primary judge did not give effect to the applicable objects of the Act – where the respondent submits that the primary judge’s interpretation of s 279 is correct – whether the primary judge’s construction of s 279 is correct Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 45(1), s 47 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 2001 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 279(1), s 287 Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd v McPaul [2006] 1 Qd R 201; [2005] QSC 278, cited Cameron v RACQ Insurance Limited [2013] QSC 124, cited Canadian National Railways v Canadian Steamship Lines Ltd [1945] AC 204, cited Gitsham v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2003] 2 Qd R 251; [2002] QCA 310, cited Healy v Logan City Council [2016] QDC 15, related Inland Revenue Commissioners v Parker [1966] AC 141, cited Maguire v Woolworths Ltd, Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, SC 9924 of 2009, Peter Lyons J, 25 September 2009, cited Pepper v Attorney-General (Qld) [No 2] [2008] 2 Qd R 353; [2008] QCA 207, cited Rice Growers Co-Operative Mills Ltd v Bannerman (1981) 56 FLR 443; [1981] FCA 211, cited RSL (Queensland) War Veterans Homes Limited & Ors v Palma [2010] QSC 222, cited Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2005] 1 Qd R 204,