Keir v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Keir v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation

Regulator) [2014] QIRC 025

PARTIES:

Keir, Gaye Emily

(Applicant)

Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation
Regulator)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

B/2013/37

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave to proceed after 1 year's delay

DELIVERED ON:

6 February 2014

HEARING DATE:

15 August 2013

MEMBER:

Deputy President Bloomfield

ORDERS :

1. Application dismissed.

2.	Costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

Application for leave to proceed - Industrial Relations Act 1999 - Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 - Lapse of proceeding after at least 1 year's delay - Explanation for the delay - Dilatory solicitor - Prejudice to respondent - Merits of the application - Application dismissed.

CASES:

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 R 230,
R 230(3)

Christopher William Savage v Q-COMP
(WC/2011/119) - Decision
<

Tyler v Custom Credit Corporation [2000] QCA 178

Vibe Allerup v Heka Pty Ltd t/as Brisbane Dental

Group [1999] 160 QGIG 112

Keioskie v C. B. Baker Brisbane Pty Ltd and The
Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland

[1992] QCA 304

Debra Kwan-Lai Barbour v Queensland Health
(TD/2010/69) - Decision
<
Q-COMP v Aqueen Teng Deng (C/2010/56) -

Decision <

Roy Carmody v WorkCover Queensland [1998] 157
QGIG 119

APPEARANCES:

Mr S. Grant, Counsel instructed by Quinn & Scattini
Lawyers, for the Applicant.

Mr F. Lippett, Counsel directly instructed by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the Respondent.

Background
[1] On 19 June 2013 Dr Gaye Emily Keir filed an Application in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) in which she sought leave to proceed under Rule 230 - Lapse of proceeding after at least 1 year's delay, of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (the Rules) in Matter No. WC/2011/136 (the Appeal). The last formal event in relation to Dr Keir's prosecution of the Appeal was a conference under s 552A of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCR Act) held on 1 August 2011.
Legislation
[2] Rule 230 of the Rules provides:
"230 Lapse of proceeding after at least 1 year's delay
(1) This rule applies if -

(a) an application starting a proceeding has been filed; and
(b) no action has been taken in relation to the application for at least
year since the last action was taken in the application.

(2) A party may only take further action on the application with an order of the
court, commission or registrar.

(3) An application for an order under subrule (2) must be in the approved form
and state the following –

(a) the steps taken in the proceeding;
(b) an explanation for the circumstances of the delay;

(c)

the steps (including a timetable) proposed to be taken to progress the proceeding;

(d)

any prejudice suffered or likely to be suffered by another party to the proceeding if the application starting the proceeding is not struck out;
(e) the merits of the proceeding;

(f)

why the court, commission or registrar should make the order despite the delay."

Evidence
[3] In satisfaction of the obligations imposed upon her by the…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Keir v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the dispute arose from an application by Keir, a former employee, for compensation following an injury sustained during his employment. The application was made to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, where the Workers' Compensation Regulator was the respondent. Keir sought leave to proceed with his claim after a significant delay in filing the application. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the delay in filing was justified and whether the delay caused any prejudice to the respondent, the Workers' Compensation Regulator.

The court examined the explanations provided by Keir's solicitor for the delay and considered whether the delay was dilatory in nature. It was noted that the delay was at least one year, which the court found significant. The court also assessed the merits of Keir's application and the potential prejudice to the respondent due to the delay. In evaluating the prejudice, the court considered the respondent's need to defend the claim in a timely manner and the impact of the delay on their ability to do so effectively. Ultimately, the court found that the delay was unjustified and that the respondent would be prejudiced if the application were to proceed.

Following this assessment, the court determined that the application for leave to proceed was not in the interests of justice. The court dismissed the application, finding that the delay was unreasonable and caused significant prejudice to the respondent. The court's decision was based on the balance of the factors, including the explanation for the delay and the impact on the respondent's ability to defend the claim. The application was dismissed, and no further proceedings were allowed to continue.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

(a)	an application starting a proceeding has been filed; and
(b)	no action has been taken in relation to the application for at least

(a)	the steps taken in the proceeding;
(b)	an explanation for the circumstances of the delay;
(c)	the steps (including a timetable) proposed to be taken to progress the proceeding;
(d)	any prejudice suffered or likely to be suffered by another party to the proceeding if the application starting the proceeding is not struck out;
(e)	the merits of the proceeding;
(f)	why the court, commission or registrar should make the order despite the delay."