QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
| CITATION: | Kevesther Pty Ltd v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 195 |
| PARTIES: | Kevesther Pty Ltd v Workers’ Compensation Regulator |
| CASE NO: | WC/2023/141 |
| PROCEEDING: | Application in existing proceedings |
| DELIVERED ON: | 8 August 2024 |
| MEMBER: | Gazenbeek IC |
| HEARD AT: | On the papers |
| ORDERS: | 1. That, pursuant to r 41 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), the Appellant is to file an Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions with the Industrial Registry that is compliant with the requirements of the Commission and that, at minimum, contains the following amendments to the Statement of Facts and Contentions filed on 15 February 2024: a. the Appellant is to amend paragraphs [1]-[2] to include specific reference to the material facts upon b. the Appellant is to remove paragraphs [3]-[9]. 2. That the Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions is to be filed by the Appellant with the Industrial Registry within 28 days from the release of this Decision. |
| CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPEAL – WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – where the worker has an accepted entitlement to compensation for a psychological and/or psychiatric injury – where an employer appellant appeals against a decision of the Regulator – where the worker is not a party to the substantive appeal – where the Appellant has filed a Statement of Facts and Contentions advancing a case based on errors in the Regulator’s decision at first instance – where the Respondent seeks a direction that the Appellant provide a compliant Statement of Facts and Contentions – consideration of the nature of a workers’ compensation appeal to the Commission – distinction between appeal stricto sensu and a hearing de novo – consideration of the issue in the substantive appeal and the onus of proof – consideration of the purpose of a Statement of Facts and Contentions – consideration of the Commission’s requirements as to the form and content of a Statement of Facts and Contentions – where case advanced by Appellant is irrelevant to a hearing de novo – consideration of requirement to be clear and concise – where Statement of Facts and Contentions does not alert the Commission or the Respondent to the Appellant’s case – Appellant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions deficient – Appellant ordered to file an Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions |
| LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS: | Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 451, 989 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 11, 32, 548, 549, 550, 552-554, 556, 558 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) |
| CASES: | Canton v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 145 Carlton v Blackwood [2017] ICQ 001 CFMEU v Blackwood and Vaccaneo [2015] QIRC 050 Charters Towers Regional Council v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 027 Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031 |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Kevesther Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2024] QIRC 195
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Kevesther Pty Ltd, an employer, appealed a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which upheld a claim by an employee for compensation related to a psychological injury sustained during employment. The employee did not participate in the appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether the Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions complied with the Commission's requirements and whether the Appellant's case was relevant to the nature of a hearing de novo. The court needed to consider the nature of workers' compensation appeals, the distinction between strict appeal and de novo hearings, the purpose of a Statement of Facts and Contentions, and the Commission's requirements for such statements.
The court noted that the nature of a workers' compensation appeal at the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission is a rehearing de novo, which means the appeal is not strictly limited to reviewing errors in the original decision but involves a fresh examination of all issues. The Appellant's case was based on errors in the Regulator's decision, which the court found irrelevant to a de novo hearing where the focus is on the merits of the case. The purpose of a Statement of Facts and Contentions is to confine the issues to be considered and to alert the Commission and the Respondent to the Appellant's case before the hearing starts. The court found the Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions deficient as it did not meet these requirements, did not reference the material facts, and contained irrelevant arguments.
The court ordered the Appellant to file an Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions that complied with the Commission's requirements. The amended statement had to include specific references to the material facts and remove certain paragraphs that were not pertinent to the de novo hearing. The Appellant was required to file this amended statement within 28 days from the release of the court's decision.
The court noted that the nature of a workers' compensation appeal at the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission is a rehearing de novo, which means the appeal is not strictly limited to reviewing errors in the original decision but involves a fresh examination of all issues. The Appellant's case was based on errors in the Regulator's decision, which the court found irrelevant to a de novo hearing where the focus is on the merits of the case. The purpose of a Statement of Facts and Contentions is to confine the issues to be considered and to alert the Commission and the Respondent to the Appellant's case before the hearing starts. The court found the Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions deficient as it did not meet these requirements, did not reference the material facts, and contained irrelevant arguments.
The court ordered the Appellant to file an Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions that complied with the Commission's requirements. The amended statement had to include specific references to the material facts and remove certain paragraphs that were not pertinent to the de novo hearing. The Appellant was required to file this amended statement within 28 days from the release of the court's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. That, pursuant to r 41 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), the Appellant is to file an Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions with the Industrial Registry that is compliant with the requirements of the Commission and that, at minimum, contains the following amendments to the Statement of Facts and Contentions filed on 15 February 2024:
a. the Appellant is to amend paragraphs [1]-[2] to include specific reference to the material facts upon
which the Appellant relies; and
b. the Appellant is to remove paragraphs [3]-[9].
2. That the Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions is to be filed by the Appellant with the Industrial Registry within 28 days from the release of this Decision.
Background
Background to the litigation
The onus therefore rests with the Appellant to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, either that:·the worker was not a worker within the meaning of s 11 of the WCR Act; or·the worker did not sustain a personal injury in the nature of a psychological injury; or ·the worker’s personal injury did not arise out of, or in the course of, her employment; or·the worker’s employment was not a significant contributing factor to her personal injury; or·the worker’s injury did arise out of management action taken in a reasonable way by the Appellant in connection with her employment, excluding her injury from an entitlement to compensation pursuant to s 32(5) of the WCR Act. What is the purpose of a Statement of Facts and Contentions? In their submissions on behalf of the Respondent, Mr O’Neill cited the decision of Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Adams, in which Martin J, President held that:[62][17] The case which was mounted by Ms Adams before the Commission was one which was based on the stressors set out in the Statement of Stressors. The Regulator was entitled to engage in the proceeding on the basis that they were the matters which constituted the entirety of the claim made by Ms Adams. [62] [2015] ICQ 001, [17]; cited in Respondent’s submissions, filed 7 May 2024, [15]. Mr O’Neill also cited His Honour’s decision in Carlton v Blackwood, in which it is observed that:[63] [63] [2017] ICQ 001, [10]-[18]; cited in Respondent’s submissions, filed 7 May 2024, [16]. [10] It is a requirement of all appeals to the Commission under the Act for the appellant to provide, among other things, a Statement of Stressors. [11] It has been emphasised, time and time again, that one of the purposes of the Statement of Stressors (or a Statement of Events) is to confine the issues to be considered. …[14] The parties to an appeal before the Commission, and the Commission itself, must not allow an appeal under the Act to become a vehicle for the resolution of a list of grievances which are not relevant to the event or events which are said to have given rise to the compensable injury. …[18] …An appellant’s case has to be known before the hearing starts. The Commission cannot allow a case to “evolve” and place the respondent in the position of having to contend with the shifting sands of an undefined argument. If an appellant wishes to advance a different case, then that should be done by seeking an amendment to the Statement of Stressors or the document identifying the facts and contentions. The Commission can then decide whether or not to allow such an amendment. However, in his submissions on behalf of the Appellant, Mr Morris KC contended that the above authorities “relied upon [by the Respondent] are not applicable to the question currently before the Commission, because those authorities deal with a ‘Statement of Stressors’ or ‘Statement of Events’.”[64] He continues to submit that:[65]As outlined in Yousif v Workers’ Compensation Regulator, it is no longer the Commission’s practice to require a Statement of Stressors, but rather a [SOFC]. This:(a) is a different requirement altogether; and (b) in [sic] regulated by the limits contained in the Directions. [64] Appellant’s submissions, filed 21 May 2024, [36]. [65] Ibid.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
I issued directions on 22 April 2024 for the filing of written submissions by both parties on the issue of whether the Appellant’s "Statement of Facts and Contentions (filed on 15 February 2024) is compliant with the requirements of the Commission”.[12] This is the present issue for my determination. [12] Further Directions Order (No. 6), issued 22 April 2024, Orders 1-2. Approach to this decision Despite the Appellant's submission that the only question before the Commission in this interlocutory matter "is whether the [SOFC] as filed by the Appellant is compliant with the Directions",[13] I do not consider such a limited focus to be appropriate, or even possible to maintain. [13] Appellant's submissions, filed 21 May 2024, [9]. For one, I directed that the parties file submissions on whether the Appellant's SOFC was compliant with the Commission's requirements, not just the Industrial Registry's directions. That the Commission's requirements are broader than what is explicitly outlined in the directions (which are brief in nature) is apparent even from the parties' written submissions, which are more wide-ranging than simply offering an analysis on the wording of the directions issued. Additionally, I have unfortunately found that the Appellant’s submissions often rest upon an incorrect understanding of the nature of a workers' compensation appeal to the Commission. If a SOFC is prepared on the basis of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the substantive appeal, I would reasonably expect that SOFC to be non-compliant with the Commission’s requirements in some way, regardless of how clear and concise it may first appear to be. It has therefore been necessary to clarify several matters arising from the submissions before me, in order to ultimately determine whether the Appellant's SOFC is compliant with the Commission's requirements. These include: (a)What is the nature of a workers’ compensation appeal at the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission?(b)What is the issue to be decided in a workers’ compensation appeal, and which party bears the onus of proof? (c)What is the purpose of a Statement of Facts and Contentions? (d)What are the Commission’s requirements as to the form and content of a Statement of Facts and Contentions? I have not endeavoured to provide an exhaustive summary of the written and verbal submissions of the parties. Having carefully considered all of the material before me, I have instead referred to the key positions of both parties throughout my consideration below. Pursuant to s 451(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), no hearing was conducted in this interlocutory matter, and it has been decided on the papers. What is the nature of a workers’ compensation appeal at the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission? In correspondence to the Respondent of 21 March 2024 (as annexed to the Respondent's written submissions of 7 May 2024), the Appellant’s representative argued that there was:[14] 12. … a tension (to put it mildly) between statutory references to an "appeal”, and the fact that appellate proceedings take the form of a rehearing de novo…if the appellate tribunal is to set aside a decision made by the first instance decision-maker, it surely has jurisdiction to consider the correctness of that decision.13. … If you are correct that the appellate tribunal "does not revisit the decision below or review the correctness of that decision”, it may well be otiose and futile to "specify…grounds of the appeal” which identify specific errors (either of fact or of law) committed by the first instance decision-maker. But our client can hardly be blamed for following the internally contradictory procedures applying in respect of such an "appeal”.[14] Letter of Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers to Mr M. Cutting, 21 March 2024, [12]-[13].
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.