Henschke v WorkCover Queensland - [2025] QSC 275

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Henschke v WorkCover Queensland [2025] QSC 275

PARTIES:

BRADLEY HENSCHKE
(applicant)

v

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 2206/25

DIVISION:

Trial division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 October 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 September, 2 October 2025

JUDGE:

Cooper J

ORDER:

The application for a statutory order of review is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DECISIONS TO WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION APPLIES – GENERALLY – where the applicant applied to the respondent for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (‘WCR Act’) – where the respondent dismissed that application – where, pursuant to s 326 of the WCR Act, the applicant sought review by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator (‘Regulator’) of the respondent’s decision to dismiss the applicant’s application – where the Regulator dismissed that review application – where the applicant applies in the Supreme Court of Queensland for judicial review of the respondent’s dismissal of the applicant’s application for compensation – where the Regulator was not joined to the judicial review proceedings and the applicant did not seek judicial review of the Regulator’s decision – whether the application for judicial review should be dismissed

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) s 20, s 26, s 48
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 11, s 32, s 35, s 540, s 542, s 548, s 548A, s 549, s 550

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v Australian Securities Commission (1995) FCR 562, cited
Deng v Q-Comp [2011] QSC 191, cited
Lowis v Queensland Industrial Relations Commission [2019] QSC 277, cited
Mid Brisbane River Irrigators Inc v Treasurer and Minister for Trade of the State of Queensland [2014] 2 Qd R 592; [2014] QSC 196, cited
Van der Berg v WorkCover Queensland [2021] QSC 28, followed

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
MA Eade for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant was not legally represented
Hall & Wilcox for the respondent

Application

On 3 June 2025, the self-represented applicant (Mr Henschke) commenced this proceeding under s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (JR Act). He seeks a statutory order of review in respect of a decision made by the respondent (WorkCover) on 18 October 2021 to reject his application for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCR Act). The basis for the rejection was that the work injury Mr Henschke suffered – exacerbation of pre-existing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety – was found to have arisen out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by his employer (rejection decision).[1]
[1]WCR Act, s 32(5)(a).
The grounds of review set out in Mr Henschke’s application are that: the rejection decision was induced or infected by fraud;[2] the making of the rejection decision was an “improper exercise of power / unreasonableness”;[3] and, procedural fairness.[4] Mr…

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 Henschke v WorkCover Queensland

Details

AGLC: Henschke v WorkCover Queensland [2025] QSC 275
Case: [2025] QSC 275
Decision Date: 29 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Henschke v WorkCover Queensland involved Mr Henschke, an employee of Regius Pty Ltd, who sought compensation for an injury sustained during his employment. Mr Henschke claimed that his injury, an exacerbation of his pre-existing PTSD and anxiety, resulted from verbal aggression and harassment by representatives of Regius during meetings where he raised concerns about being underpaid. WorkCover Queensland, which administers workers' compensation in Queensland, rejected Mr Henschke's claim, finding that the injury was excluded from coverage under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) because it arose out of management action. The matter was then brought before the Supreme Court of Queensland for judicial review of WorkCover's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court should dismiss Mr Henschke's application for judicial review of WorkCover's decision to reject his compensation claim. The court had to determine whether the application should proceed and if not, whether the Regulator, who had also reviewed the decision, should be joined in the judicial review proceedings. The court also needed to consider whether the statutory scheme and the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) provided for the judicial review sought by Mr Henschke.

The court held that the application for judicial review should be dismissed. The reasoning included that the application did not conform to the statutory requirements for review, specifically that the Regulator, who had already reviewed the decision, was not joined as a party to the judicial review proceedings. The court found that it would be inappropriate for the proceedings to continue without the Regulator's involvement. Additionally, the court noted that the application did not seek to review the Regulator's decision, further undermining the basis for judicial review in the Supreme Court.

The court's final order was that the application for a statutory order of review was dismissed. The court did not proceed to consider the merits of the decision by WorkCover or the Regulator, as the application itself was found to be defective in its form and process.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for a statutory order of review is 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

For the reasons which follow, I accept WorkCover’s submission that it would be inappropriate for proceedings in relation to the review application to continue for the reason set out at [4](a) above. The review application should be dismissed.Events leading to the rejection decision In 2021, Mr Henschke was employed as a truck driver by Regius Pty Ltd trading as Cornwall Logging (Regius). He attended two meetings with representatives of Regius to discuss concerns he held about having been underpaid. The first meeting took place in early July 2021. After that meeting, Regius sought advice from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland (CCIQ) as to whether Mr Henschke had been underpaid. CCIQ subsequently advised Regius that, rather than having been underpaid, Mr Henschke had been paid more than he was entitled to be paid under the relevant award. Regius informed Mr Henschke of the advice it had received from CCIQ at the second meeting, which occurred on 18 August 2021. Mr Henschke did not attend work while Regius was investigating the claim that he had been underpaid. On 20 August 2021, Regius sent Mr Henschke a letter which required him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him in respect of his non-attendance at work. Mr Henschke responded to that letter on 24 August 2021. On 27 August 2021, Mr Henschke lodged his claim for compensation under s 132 of the WCR Act for the injury (exacerbation of his pre-existing PTSD and anxiety) he contended was sustained in the course of his employment with Regius. He asserted that the injury was the result of verbal aggression and harassment by representatives of Regius at the meetings where he raised his concerns about having been underpaid. Medical certificates which Mr Henschke provided to WorkCover in support of his compensation claim recorded that he was suffering from PTSD said to have been caused by his manager becoming verbally aggressive when he asked for an increase in his pay rate. Mr Henschke, and a support person who accompanied him in attending the second meeting on 18 August 2021, provided statements in support of the compensation claim. Mr Henschke also provided various payslips, the show cause letter which Regius had sent to him, and his response to that letter. Regius subsequently provided WorkCover with its response to the compensation claim and a timeline of events. It also provided (among other documents) timesheets for Mr Henschke and the advice it had received from CCIQ concerning Mr Henschke’s pay. Regius contested Mr Henschke’s assertion that his manager had been verbally aggressive towards him. As previously stated, WorkCover made the rejection decision on 18 October 2021. In summary, WorkCover:(a)accepted that Mr Henschke was a “worker” for the purposes of the WCR Act,[10] and that he had sustained a personal injury in the form of PTSD and anxiety for which his employment with Regius was a significant contributing factor;[11](b)nevertheless, rejected the compensation claim on the basis that this personal injury was excluded from the statutory definition of “injury” by s 32(5) of the WCR Act because:(i)the injury arose out of management action, comprising Mr Henschke’s interactions and meetings with his managers to discuss his concerns about having been underpaid;(ii)there was insufficient information to confirm undermining behaviours by Mr Henschke’s managers;(iii)instead, WorkCover found that Regius was managing Mr Henschke’s performance and attendance at work;(iv)although that management action might have caused Mr Henschke distress, WorkCover had determined that the action was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way.[10]WCR Act, s 11.[11]WCR Act, s 32(1).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Henschke v WorkCover Queensland [2025] QSC 275
PARTIES:	BRADLEY HENSCHKE (applicant) v WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 2206/25
DIVISION:	Trial division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 October 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 September, 2 October 2025
JUDGE:	Cooper J
ORDER:	The application for a statutory order of review is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DECISIONS TO WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION APPLIES – GENERALLY – where the applicant applied to the respondent for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (‘WCR Act’) – where the respondent dismissed that application – where, pursuant to s 326 of the WCR Act, the applicant sought review by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator (‘Regulator’) of the respondent’s decision to dismiss the applicant’s application – where the Regulator dismissed that review application – where the applicant applies in the Supreme Court of Queensland for judicial review of the respondent’s dismissal of the applicant’s application for compensation – where the Regulator was not joined to the judicial review proceedings and the applicant did not seek judicial review of the Regulator’s decision – whether the application for judicial review should be dismissed Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) s 20, s 26, s 48 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 11, s 32, s 35, s 540, s 542, s 548, s 548A, s 549, s 550 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v Australian Securities Commission (1995) FCR 562, cited Deng v Q-Comp [2011] QSC 191, cited Lowis v Queensland Industrial Relations Commission [2019] QSC 277, cited Mid Brisbane River Irrigators Inc v Treasurer and Minister for Trade of the State of Queensland [2014] 2 Qd R 592; [2014] QSC 196, cited Van der Berg v WorkCover Queensland [2021] QSC 28, followed
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf MA Eade for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant was not legally represented Hall & Wilcox for the respondent