Keighran v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2016] QIRC 96

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Keighran v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 096
PARTIES:	Keighran, Glen (applicant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2016/2
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	5 September 2016
HEARING DATES:	3 March and 23 August 2016
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER: ORDER:	Deputy President Kaufman 1. Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME - Where decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator was re-sent to the applicant - Where the appeal was not made in accordance with s 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - Where the appeal was lodged approximately 130 days out of time - Whether the Commission has power to extend time limit - Application refused. Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s542, s550
CASES:	Grice v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 059 Proctor v Jekyll Aviation Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 166 Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Michelle Pearce [2015] ICQ 012 Steven Pearce v Q-COMP (C/2010/64) van der Berg v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 161
APPEARANCES:	Mr J. Merrell, Counsel instructed directly by the Workers' Compensation Regulator. Mr G. Keighran, representing himself.

Ex Tempore Reasons for Decision

On 3 March and 23 August 2016 I heard an application for an extension of time in relation to an appeal against a Review Decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the respondent') to reject an application for compensation made by Mr Glen Keighran ('the applicant') to WorkCover on 28 August 2014. That application was rejected by WorkCover on 3 February 2015. On 13 February 2015 the applicant made an application for review of WorkCover's decision. WorkCover's decision was confirmed by the respondent on 31 March 2015. That Review Decision was sent to the applicant by email on 13 April 2015.
The applicant sought an extension of time beyond the statutory 20 day limit for the filing of his appeal to the Commission. The focus of these proceedings was whether the Commission had jurisdiction to extend time in light of section 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ('the Act'). A secondary issue was whether time should be extended were there was jurisdiction to do so.
The affidavit of the Appeals Officer from the Workers' Compensation Regulator who has carriage of this application, and its related appeal, outlines the history of this matter. I have adapted that affidavit in setting out the following background.

Background

On or about 28 August 2014, the applicant made a claim for workers' compensation. On 3 February 2015, WorkCover Queensland made the decision to reject the applicant's claim. On 13 February 2015, the applicant lodged an application for review of WorkCover's decision. On 31 March 2015, the Review Unit of the Respondent made the decision to confirm WorkCover's decision to reject the claim. The Review Decision was sent to the applicant by email on 13 April 2015. The applicant asserts that he did not receive the 13 April email.
On 23…

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 Keighran v Workers' Compensation Regulator 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] QIRC 96
Decision Date: 5 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Keighran v Workers' Compensation Regulator involved the applicant seeking an extension of time for lodging an appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The dispute arose when the Regulator re-sent the decision to the applicant, leading to the appeal being lodged approximately 130 days beyond the statutory time limit. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The central legal issues revolved around whether QCAT had the authority to extend the time limit for lodging an appeal under section 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

The court meticulously examined the statutory framework provided by the Act and relevant case law. It was determined that the statutory provisions did not confer upon QCAT the power to extend the time limit for appeals unless expressly permitted by the legislation. The court held that the absence of such express authority in the Act meant that QCAT could not grant the extension sought by the applicant. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused.

The court's reasoning was grounded in a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions and the absence of any legislative intent to allow QCAT to extend the appeal time limits. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in administrative appeals and the limited role of QCAT in such matters. The court's decision was definitive, and the application was refused, leaving the applicant without the sought-after extension.

Orders

Orders of the court

Deputy President Kaufman

1. Application refused.

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.