INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Krleski v Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 006
PARTIES:
MARKO KRLESKI
(appellant)
v
SIMON BLACKWOOD (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR)
(respondent)CASE NO/S:
C/2014/25
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
DELIVERED ON:
29 January 2015
HEARING DATE:
22 August 2014
MEMBER:
Martin J, President
ORDER/S:
Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – EMPLOYMENT RELATED INJURY, DISABILITY OR DISEASE – EMPLOYMENT SUBSTANTIAL OR SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR – PRESENCE AT PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OR WORKPLACE – where the appellant was employed at a mine site – where the appellant was employed on a ten day on, four day off cycle – where the appellant resided in accommodation paid for by his employer near the mine – where the appellant suffered serious brain injury and could not be roused from his accommodation to attend work – where there was no evidence connecting the appellant’s employment with the physical impairment – whether the Commission erred in determining that s 34(1)(c) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 did not apply – whether the event happen on a “day” on which the worker had attended at the place of employment – whether, if it did happen on a “day”, it occurred while the worker was “temporarily absent from the place of employment during an ordinary recess”
Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 341(2)
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32, s 34CASES:
Autumn Solar Installations Pty Ltd v Solar Magic Australia Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 463
Cornfoot v Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation [1904] 1 KB 40
Lester v Garland (1808) 15 Ves Jr 248
Prowse v McIntyre (1961) 111 CLR 264
Stock v W Angliss & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [1964] VR 502APPEARANCES:
D Kent QC instructed by Hall Payne Lawyers for the appellant
P O’Neill directly instructed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator
On 13 March 2012 Mr Krleski commenced employment with G & S Engineering Services at the Daunia Mine near Moranbah. He was employed on a “work cycle” roster arrangement under which he would work 10 days in a row and then have four days leave. His ordinary hours of work were from 6.30am to 5pm. As Mr Krleski lived in Mackay he was recognised as a “non-local” under the G & S Engineering Services Daunia Project Union Greenfields Agreement and, so, was entitled to accommodation provided by the employer.
Mr Krleski was accommodated at the MAC Village at Coppabella. The Village was owned and operated by The MAC Services Group. That group was not connected with Mr Krleski’s employer.
On 12 April 2012, Mr Krleski undertook his usual work and returned to the Village from the worksite at about 5pm. He then had dinner and, with another employee, went to the gym in the Village. Mr Krleski was last seen on the evening of 12 April at about 9.15pm. He was not seen again until the evening of 13 April when he was found unconscious on his bed in his accommodation unit.
In Mr…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Krleski v Simon Blackwood (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.
- Case
- [2015] ICQ 6
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the appellant's employment was a substantial or significant contributing factor to his injury, considering the absence of evidence directly linking his employment to the physical impairment. The appellant argued that his injury occurred on a day he was supposed to work, while the Regulator contended that the injury did not happen on such a day or during an ordinary recess. The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of "day" under the Act and whether the statutory provisions applied to the appellant's unique employment cycle and living arrangements. Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no error in the Regulator's determination that the statutory provisions did not apply to the appellant's circumstances.
As a result of the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Regulator's decision. The court's decision underscores the importance of clear evidence connecting employment with the injury in workers' compensation claims, particularly in cases involving unconventional work schedules and living arrangements. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, leaving the Regulator's determination intact.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is 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.