Hunt v Blackwood - [2014] ICQ 14

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hunt v Blackwood and Anor [2014] ICQ 014

PARTIES:

LUFIA HUNT
(appellant)
v
SIMON BLACKWOOD (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR)
(first respondent)
BANDAG MANUFACTURING PTY LTD
(second respondent)

CASE NO/S:

C/2013/22

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

20 May 2014

HEARING DATE:

25 February 2014

MEMBER:

Martin J, President

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – APPEALS, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATED CASES – NATURE AND SCOPE OF APPEAL AND REVIEW – where the appellant’s purported notice of appeal was not competent – where the appellant, by his counsel, misapprehended the nature of the proceedings – where the appellant’s submissions were infected by this misapprehension – where the Court had no jurisdiction to award the relief the appellant sought – whether the appellant, by his counsel, presented an intelligible case on appeal

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – INJURY, DISEASE OR DISABILITY – OTHER MATTERS – where it was the appellant’s case below that he suffered from Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS) – where the Commission found that the appellant did not suffer from RADS – whether the Commission erred in finding that the appellant had not suffered an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – EMPLOYMENT RELATED INJURY, DISABILITY OR DISEASE – ARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENT – where the appellant claimed to have been exposed to formaldehyde at work – where the Commission was not satisfied that the appellant had been so exposed – whether the Commission erred in its assessment of the relevant expert evidence

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32, s 560A, s 561

CASES:

Bell v Australian Meat Holdings [2003] QCA 209, considered
Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 8, cited
Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 9, cited
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, applied
Mater Misericordiae Health Service Brisbane Ltd v Q-Comp (2005) QGIG 144, cited

APPEARANCES:

KW Roche on behalf of the appellant, instructed by Nathan Lawyers
SP Gray on behalf of the first respondent, directly instructed
G Hampson on behalf of the second respondent, instructed by Piper Alderman Lawyers

On 12 May 2010 the appellant applied for compensation from WorkCover Queensland for a workplace injury he called Toxic Fume Inhalation Syndrome (this was also referred to in the proceedings as Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome (“RADS”)). It is his case that he has suffered this injury as a result of his employment with Bandag Manufacturing Pty Ltd (“Bandag”), where he was involved in making tyre retreads. His duties at Bandag included using a chemical called Xiameter. It was heated, in an emulsion with water, to approximately 185 degrees Celsius and then used to help release cured tyre rubber from the moulds. This process resulted in the release of certain fumes. Mr Hunt says that in the course of his employment he was exposed to toxic fumes including formaldehyde.

WorkCover…

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 Hunt v Blackwood

Details

AGLC: Hunt v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 14
Case: [2014] ICQ 14
Decision Date: 20 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hunt v Blackwood, the appellant, a former employee, sought to appeal against the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission, which found that he was not entitled to workers’ compensation. The appellant argued that he suffered from Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS) due to exposure to formaldehyde at work, but the Commission rejected this claim, determining that there was insufficient evidence to support it. The appellant sought compensation for the alleged injury and disability, which the Commission had denied.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's notice of appeal was competent and if the Commission had erred in its findings regarding the appellant's claim of RADS and exposure to formaldehyde. The court also needed to determine whether the appellant's submissions were coherent and whether the Commission correctly interpreted the expert evidence. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the Commission's findings were supported by the evidence and whether there was a jurisdictional error.

The court found that the appellant's notice of appeal was not competent because it misapprehended the nature of the proceedings. The court also noted that the appellant's counsel had consistently misunderstood the proceedings, leading to submissions that were not intelligible. Consequently, the court concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to award the relief sought by the appellant. Additionally, the court upheld the Commission's findings that the appellant did not suffer from RADS and that there was insufficient evidence to support his claim of exposure to formaldehyde. The court found no error in the Commission's assessment of the expert evidence.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The court confirmed that the Commission's findings were supported by the evidence, and there was no basis for the appellant to receive compensation. The court's decision was final, and no further appeals or reviews were permitted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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:	Hunt v Blackwood and Anor [2014] ICQ 014
PARTIES:	LUFIA HUNT (appellant) v SIMON BLACKWOOD (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR) (first respondent) BANDAG MANUFACTURING PTY LTD (second respondent)
CASE NO/S:	C/2013/22
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	20 May 2014
HEARING DATE:	25 February 2014
MEMBER:	Martin J, President
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – APPEALS, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATED CASES – NATURE AND SCOPE OF APPEAL AND REVIEW – where the appellant’s purported notice of appeal was not competent – where the appellant, by his counsel, misapprehended the nature of the proceedings – where the appellant’s submissions were infected by this misapprehension – where the Court had no jurisdiction to award the relief the appellant sought – whether the appellant, by his counsel, presented an intelligible case on appeal WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – INJURY, DISEASE OR DISABILITY – OTHER MATTERS – where it was the appellant’s case below that he suffered from Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS) – where the Commission found that the appellant did not suffer from RADS – whether the Commission erred in finding that the appellant had not suffered an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – EMPLOYMENT RELATED INJURY, DISABILITY OR DISEASE – ARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENT – where the appellant claimed to have been exposed to formaldehyde at work – where the Commission was not satisfied that the appellant had been so exposed – whether the Commission erred in its assessment of the relevant expert evidence Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32, s 560A, s 561
CASES:	Bell v Australian Meat Holdings [2003] QCA 209, considered Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 8, cited Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 9, cited Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, applied Mater Misericordiae Health Service Brisbane Ltd v Q-Comp (2005) QGIG 144, cited
APPEARANCES:	KW Roche on behalf of the appellant, instructed by Nathan Lawyers SP Gray on behalf of the first respondent, directly instructed G Hampson on behalf of the second respondent, instructed by Piper Alderman Lawyers