Hinrichsen v Glencore Queensland Limited - [2019] QSC 112

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hinrichsen v Glencore Queensland Limited [2019] QSC 112

PARTIES:

WILLIAM ERNEST HINRICHSEN

(applicant)

v
GLENCORE QUEENSLAND LIMITED (ACN 009 814 019) T/AS XTRACARE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

No 227 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

7 May 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

10 April 2019

JUDGE:

Crow J

ORDER:

1. A declaration that the Plaintiff need not comply with a request by the Respondent pursuant to section 282 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 to undergo a medical examination with an Orthopaedic Surgeon other than Dr Simon Journeaux in connection with his claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of an incident on 19 January 2016.

2. The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS – SUBMISSION TO MEDICAL EXAMINATION – where applicant applies for a declaration he need not comply with an a request to undergo an examination pursuant to s 282 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where respondent applies to compel the applicant to undergo a medical examination pursuant to s 282 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – whether the compliance with the request is unreasonable or unnecessarily repetitious - whether applicant should be compelled to undergo a further medical examination

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Ratcliffe v Raging Thunder Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 60
Woolworths (Qld) P/L v Berry-Porter [2002] QSC 360
Moore v Stage Coach Qld Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 003
Jackson v State of Queensland [2005] QSC 161
Behrens v Nguyen & Anor [2017] QSC 14
Muller v Nebo Shire Council [2002] QSC 084

COUNSEL:

S Deaves for the applicant

G O’Driscoll for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Taylors Solicitors for the applicant

Barry.Nilsson for the respondent

The applicant, Mr Hinrichsen, filed an application on 26 March 2019 seeking the following orders:
“1. A declaration that the Plaintiff need not comply with a request by the Respondent pursuant to section 282 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 to undergo a medical examination with an Orthopaedic Surgeon other than Dr Simon Journeaux in connection with his claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of an incident on 19 January 2016.
2. The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application;
3. Such further or other order as this Honourable Court deems appropriate.”
The respondent, Xtracare, filed an application on 4 April 2019 seeking the following orders:
“1. That the Applicant comply with a request by the Respondent pursuant to section 282 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 to undergo a medical examination by an orthopaedic surgeon to be selected by the Applicant from a panel comprising Dr Christopher Blenkin, Dr Philip Duke and Dr John Walters.
2. The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.
3. Such further or other…

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 Hinrichsen v Glencore Queensland Limited 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: [2019] QSC 112
Decision Date: 7 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Queensland Court of Appeal was between Hinrichsen, the applicant, and Glencore Queensland Limited, the respondent. The dispute centred on whether the applicant was required to comply with a medical examination requested by the respondent under section 282 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. This request followed an incident on 19 January 2016 that led to the applicant filing a claim for damages due to personal injuries. The applicant sought a declaration that they were not obligated to comply with the request for a medical examination by an orthopaedic surgeon other than Dr Simon Journeaux. The respondent, in turn, sought to compel the applicant to undergo a further medical examination.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's refusal to comply with the request for a medical examination was reasonable or if the request itself was unnecessarily repetitive. The court had to consider the circumstances under which the applicant had previously undergone medical examinations and whether another examination by a different orthopaedic surgeon was warranted. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate if the applicant's refusal to comply with the request for another medical examination was justified under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the applicant need not comply with the respondent's request for a medical examination by an orthopaedic surgeon other than Dr Simon Journeaux. The court reasoned that the applicant had already undergone multiple medical examinations, including with Dr Journeaux, and that another examination by a different orthopaedic surgeon was not necessary. The court concluded that the request was unnecessarily repetitive, and therefore, the applicant should not be compelled to undergo a further medical examination. As a result, the court granted the applicant a declaration to that effect and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. A declaration that the Plaintiff need not comply with a request by the Respondent pursuant to section 282 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 to undergo a medical examination with an Orthopaedic Surgeon other than Dr Simon Journeaux in connection with his claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of an incident on 19 January 2016.

2. The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application.

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:	Hinrichsen v Glencore Queensland Limited [2019] QSC 112
PARTIES:	WILLIAM ERNEST HINRICHSEN (applicant) v GLENCORE QUEENSLAND LIMITED (ACN 009 814 019) T/AS XTRACARE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	No 227 of 2019
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	7 May 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	10 April 2019
JUDGE:	Crow J
ORDER:	1. A declaration that the Plaintiff need not comply with a request by the Respondent pursuant to section 282 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 to undergo a medical examination with an Orthopaedic Surgeon other than Dr Simon Journeaux in connection with his claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of an incident on 19 January 2016. 2. The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS – SUBMISSION TO MEDICAL EXAMINATION – where applicant applies for a declaration he need not comply with an a request to undergo an examination pursuant to s 282 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where respondent applies to compel the applicant to undergo a medical examination pursuant to s 282 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – whether the compliance with the request is unreasonable or unnecessarily repetitious - whether applicant should be compelled to undergo a further medical examination Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) Ratcliffe v Raging Thunder Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 60 Woolworths (Qld) P/L v Berry-Porter [2002] QSC 360 Moore v Stage Coach Qld Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 003 Jackson v State of Queensland [2005] QSC 161 Behrens v Nguyen & Anor [2017] QSC 14 Muller v Nebo Shire Council [2002] QSC 084
COUNSEL:	S Deaves for the applicant G O’Driscoll for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Taylors Solicitors for the applicant Barry.Nilsson for the respondent