Lara v TPS Engineering Pty Ltd t/a Queensland Tube Mills

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Jose German Lara v TPS Engineering Pty Ltd trading as
Queensland Tube Mills & Another [2000] QSC 036
PARTIES: JOSE GERMAN LARA
(applicant)
v
TPS ENGINEERING PTY LTD ACN 003 201 232
Trading as QUEENSLAND TUBE MILLS
(first respondent)
and
STAINLESS TUBE MILLS (AUST) PTY LTD
ACN 006 709 208
Trading as QUEENSLAND TUBE MILLS
(second respondent)
FILE NO: 680 of 2000 Brisbane Registry
DIVISION: Trial Division
DELIVERED ON: 2 March 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 11 February 2000
JUDGE: Shepherdson J
ORDER: Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS: MASTER AND SERVANT – CONSTRUCTION OF
STATUTES – WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 –
application under s305 of Act for leave to commence
proceedings – whether applicant is "a person mentioned in"
s253(1) and therefore entitled to seek damages for injury.
Bonser v Melnacis & Anor [2000] QCA 13 judgment
8/2/2000 referred to
COUNSEL: Mr J S Douglas QC with Mr Rangiah for applicant
Mr Hoare for respondents
SOLICITORS: Murphy Schmidt for applicant
Mullins & Mullins for respondent

SHEPHERDSON J: In this proceeding the applicant has sought leave to bring a proceeding against the abovenamed respondents. His right to such relief is said to be founded on s 305 (1) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.
He has also sought an order that he may start the proceeding once he has complied with s 302 of the Act.
On 11/2/2000 I heard 10 applications for relief under s305. One of these is Lara's. I reserved the matters for further consideration.
In Lara's case the evidence shows that on 10 May 1998 Lara first attended on his present solicitors Murphy Schmidt and on 18 May 1998 instructed those solicitors that in early 1994 he had begun employment with the respondent Queensland Tube Mills as a "buffer and polisher".
The applicant, Lara relies on two affidavits by Luke Thomas Murphy and one by Matthew Edward Holmes. Murphy is a partner at Murphy Schmidt Solicitors and Holmes is employed by Murphy Schmidt. The evidence shows:-

(i) On 10 July 1997 Lara signed an application for compensation (Exhibit LTM01 Murphy's affidavit filed 28/1/2000) for an injury said to have happened at Queensland Tube Mills Workshop at 76 Pentex Street, Salisbury. This application shows that the applicant, when asked to describe "What part of the body is injured?" wrote "both arms whrist (sic) and the third finger from the thumb (left hand)". Question No 24 in the application "When did the injury happen?" was not answered. However, in response to question 29 also "When did the injury happen?" followed by nine boxes, Lara ticked the box "Over a period". Question 30 read "Explain what you were doing at the time and how the injury happened?". This was answered "Too much heavy lift". Question 32 "Was any person or anything responsible for the injury?" was answered "Yes" and when asked to state "Details" he wrote "heavy bins". Question 34 read "Have you previously claimed Workers' Compensation in Queensland?" and he ticked the box "Yes". I should add that question 7 of the Exhibit LTMO1 asked "Do you require an interpreter?". He ticked the box "Yes" and in response to particulars of "Language spoken at home" wrote "Spanish".
(ii) By letter dated 10 November 1997 (Exhibit LTM02 to Murphy's affidavit filed 28/2/2000) WorkCover wrote to Lara referring to his application dated 10 July 1997 " and said:
"I am unable to conclude from the evidence that such treatment was made necessary as a result of 'injury' within the terms of Chapter 1 Part 4 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. Therefore I regret to advise my decision is that your application is rejected."
The letter went on to notify Lara of his right to seek a review of the decision and attached a brochure; the "brochure" contained reasons for the decision and more particularly listed the evidence which had been considered by WorkCover, the facts established from this evidence and concluded:
"Reasons for the Decision:-
Your claim for Workers' Compensation dated 10/07/97 has been
rejected as it cannot be seen that you suffered or are suffering from
any work related injury. Your claim has been rejected as per
Chapter 1 Part 4 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996."

(iii)

On 15 October 1997 Lara completed a second application for Workers' Compensation (Exhibit LTM03 to Murphy's affidavit filed 28/1/2000). This document described the injury as "tendinitis" with his right forearm being injured. The injury was said to have happened at the workshop 73 Pentex Street, Salisbury, but question 24 "When did the injury occur?" was not answered. Question 29 was again answered by ticking the box "Over a period of time". Question 32 "Was any person or anything responsible for the injury?" was answered "Yes" and details given "repetitive work". Question 34 "Have you previously claimed Workers' Compensation in Queensland?" was answered "No". This final answer may be thought surprising but other evidence before me shows that Lara has a poor understanding of English.

(iv)

By letter dated 11 March 1998 (Exhibit LTM04 to Murphy's affidavit filed 28/1/2000). WorkCover wrote to Lara rejecting the application dated 15 October 1997. Again it notified Lara of his right to review the decision and attached "Reasons for the Decision" including a list of the evidence considered and the facts established from the evidence. It was said the application had been rejected as the provisions of 34 of the Act had not been met. Section 34 contains "Meaning of Injury" but it is unnecessary to set it out.

(v)

On 22 September 1998 Lara signed a third application for compensation. I note that on this occasion he gave his surname as "Lara Barrera". Question 21 of that application which is Exhibit LTMO7 to Murphy's same affidavit asked "What is the nature of your injury?" but was unanswered. Question 22 "What part of the body is injured?" was answered "sprain & strain". The injury was said to have happened in the workshop at 76 Pentex Street, Salisbury (Q23). Question 24 "When did the injury happen?" was unanswered. Again Question 29 was answered by ticking the box "over a period of time" and Question 30 which asked for an explanation what the applicant was doing at the time and how the injury happened was answered – "buffing, polishing and (word indecipherable)". Question 32 "Was any person of anything responsible for the injury?" was answered "Yes" and details given "repetitive work".

(vi)

By letter dated 6 January 1999 (Exhibit LTM11 to Murphy's same affidavit) WorkCover notified Lara that the application dated 22 September 1998 had been rejected and again he was informed of his right to seek a review of the decision. Reasons for the decision were attached to that letter containing details of the evidence considered and the facts established.
(vii) In the reasons for the decision the following appeared:

•

"34(Chapter 1 Part 4) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 states an 'injury' is a personal injury arising out of or in the course of employment if the employment is the major significant factor causing the injury.

•

based on the evidence to file, employment is not considered to be the major significant factor in causing your incapacity.

•

as such you are not considered to have sustained an 'injury' within the terms of Chapter 1 Part 4 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.
• your claim is therefore one for rejection."

(viii)

On 3/3/1999 Murphy Schmidt sent WorkCover's Statutory Review Unit an application dated 3/3/99 signed by LT Murphy seeking review of WorkCover's decision of 6 January 1999 (Exhibit LTM-12 is said by Murphy to be a true copy of the application for review of the decision of 6 January 1999 but this statement may not be correct in light of Exhibit LTM-16 to which I shall shortly refer). Exhibit LTM-12 shows WorkCover's Reference No. 980146826/CW1633-98. This number accords with that on Exhibit LTM-16. I suspect that Exhibit LTM-16 shows the incorrect date of Lara's application for review when it says "dated 2 February 1999". The date on the application (Exhibit LTM-12) is "3/3/99" and Exhibit LTM12 also shows claim No 980146826.

(ix) It appears that on 24/12/1998 Murphy Schmidt had written to WorkCover seeking a conditional damages certificate WorkCover Queensland Act. A copy of this letter is not before me. However by letter dated 19 March 1999 (Exhibit LTM-13 to Murphy's affidavit) from WorkCover to Murphy Schmidt, WorkCover said:
"With respect to the request contained in your letter of 24/12/98, asking that a certificate be issued under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, you will note that this request has not yet been actioned. Initially this was due to the fact that it was not considered that an urgent need to start proceedings existed, however following the investigation of the application, it is further advised that a certificate will not be issued under the WorkCover Queensland Act of 1996, as again it is considered that your client has not sustained an "injury" this time within the terms of chapter 1 Part 4 of the aforementioned legislation.
You have the right to seek a review of this decision. For your information I have attached a brochure about reviews and appeals."
(x) On 19 April 1999 the applicant's solicitors sent to WorkCover's Review Unit the applicant's undated application for review of the decision of 19 March 1999 (Exhibit LTM-13). The application for review is Exhibit LTM14 to Murphy's affidavit. By letter dated 27 April 1999 addressed to Murphy Schmidt (Exhibit LTM15 to Murphy's affidavit) a review officer from the statutory review unit stated:
"I refer to your application for review dated 19 April 1999 of a decision by WorkCover to reject your client's Application for Damages Certificate as a result of an injury sustained over a period.
I have considered the details of your grievance and reviewed the
evidence on the claim file.
I wish to advise you that my decision is to vary the decision by
WorkCover namely that your client's claim is rejected as not and
'injury' within the terms of chapter 1 Part 4 of the WorkCover
Queensland Act 1996.
In order to assist your understanding of how I have arrived at this
decision I outline my reasons below.
An application for damages certificate was received by WorkCover dated 24 December 1998. This application indicated that the date Mr Lara first sought medical attention for the injury was 11 June 1997. This would be the date that any entitlement to compensation would commence.
WorkCover subsequently investigated this application and rejected it on the basis that your client had not sustained an 'injury' within the terms of Part 2 section 6 of the Workers' Compensation Act 1990. The correct decision would be 'not an injury' within the terms of chapter 1 Part 4 of WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.
Within the terms of Part 265 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – access to damages if no previous application for compensation

3(b) WorkCover decides that the worker has sustained an injury;
and
(8) If WorkCover makes a decision about a matter mentioned in
sub-section (3)(b) and a person does not agree with the
decision WorkCover must refer the matter to a Medical
Assessment Tribunal for a decision.
Consequently I have referred the file to WorkCover to
arrange for this matter to be referred to a Medical
Assessment Tribunal for determination ... ."
(This letter bore the reference No CW2246-98/980030237)

(xi) By letter dated 28 April 1999 (Exhibit LTM-16 to Murphy's same affidavit) written to Murphy Schmidt the same review officer from WorkCover Statutory Review Unit referred to an application for review dated 2 February 1999 of a decision by WorkCover to reject Lara's claim for compensation as a result of an injury sustained over a period of time for review. The reference number of LTM16 is CW1633-98/980146826.
(xii) Exhibits LTM-15 and LTM-16 are decisions in respect of two separate applications for review. Exhibit LTM16 notified Murphy Schmidt that the review officer had decided to set aside WorkCover's decision that Lara's claim be returned to WorkCover for further investigation. Possible carpal tunnel syndrome was mentioned.
(xiii) By letter dated 11 November 1999 (Exhibit LTM17) Murphy Schmidt wrote to WorkCover (reference CW1633-98/980146826) in response to the letter LTM16. The letter said:
"You might kindly advise whether those further investigations have been undertaken. If not you might kindly arrange for further investigations to be undertaken as soon as possible.

Until your corporation investigates our client's claim further and makes a fresh decision, our client is unable to provide his instructions relating to the future conduct of his claim ... ."

(xiv)

By letter dated 18 November 1999 (Exhibit LTM18) Murphy Schmidt wrote to WorkCover (reference CW2246-98/980030237) and referred to WorkCover's letter of 27 April 1999 (Exhibit LTM 15). This letter referred to Lara's claim that he considers his injuries which form the basis of his common law claim were sustained over the entire period of his employment. The letter referred to a report of 10 February 1999 from a Dr Couzens which report was said to support the client's view. The letter submitted that Lara's right to common law damages for his injuries was governed by "all of the various pieces of Workers' Compensation Legislation on the following basis":

(i)

For the portion of his injuries sustained between 18 March 1994 to 31 December 1995 the Workers' Compensation Act 1990 apply.

(ii)

For the portion of his injuries sustained between 1 January 1996 to 31 January 1997 the Worker's Compensation Act 1990 (as amended) apply; and

(iii)

For the portion of his injuries sustained after 1 February 1997 until he ceased work on 11 June 1997 the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 applies.

(xv)

Exhibit LTM18 went on to point out that WorkCover's letter of 27 April 1999 (Exhibit 15) said that Lara's application for a conditional damages certificate "is now being referred to the Medical Assessment Tribunal pursuant to s 265(8) of the WorkCover Act" but further pointed out that that Act only applied to injuries sustained after 1 February 1997. The rest of the letter does not affect the present application as it concerns injuries other than those allegedly suffered after 1 February 1997.

(xvi)

The end result is that, so far as injuries allegedly suffered after 1 February 1997 are concerned an application for internal review by WorkCover under s 490 of the WorkCover Queensland Act has been lodged.

I add that by letter dated 13 January 2000 (Exhibit LTM21) Murphy Schmidt asked that the investigations referred to in the letter of 28 April 1999 (Exhibit LTM-16) occur immediately and went on:
"As our client considers the injuries which give rise to his statutory claims were sustained over the entire period of his employment, in order to protect his right to claim common law damages for those part of his injuries sustained during the course of his employment since 1 February 1997 s 302 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 must be complied with before 1 February 2000. The WorkCover Act does not appear to provide for circumstances where a claimant has lodged his/her application and it has not been determined.
Notwithstanding there are no provisions in the WorkCover Act to cover these circumstances in order to protect our clients right to claim common law damages you might kindly issue our client with a conditional damages certificate as a matter of urgency ... ."
By letter dated 31 January 2000 (reference 980146826/A06) (Exhibit LTM-01 to Murphy's affidavit filed 3/2/2000) WorkCover notified Lara that his application for compensation was rejected and attached reasons for the decision including the evidence considered, facts established from the evidence.
This letter Exhibit LTM-01 also discloses that on 31 January 2000 the solicitors acting for WorkCover told Murphy Schmidt that WorkCover would not be issuing the conditional damages certificate (under the WorkCover Act) requested in the letter of 13 January 2000 (Exhibit LTM-21).
I do not propose to set out the relevant provisions of the WorkCover Queensland Act they appear in my reasons for judgment in the application of Gamero 667/2000.
For present purposes though I requote the following provisions from parts 1 and 2 of CHAPTER 5 – ACCESS TO DAMAGES in the WorkCover Queensland Act.
"s250 In this chapter
"claimant" means a person entitled to seek damages".
["this Chapter" means "CHAPTER 5"]

s253 which appears in "division 1 – limitations on persons entitled to seek
damages" in "PART 2 – ENTITLEMENT CONDITIONS" reads:
"General limitation on persons entitled to seek damages
253.(1) The following are the only persons entitled to seek damages
for an injury sustained by a worker-
(a)          the worker, if the worker has received a notice of assessment from WorkCover stating that-

(i) the worker has sustained a certificate injury; or
(ii) the worker has sustained a non-certificate injury; or
(b)          the worker, if the worker's application for compensation was allowed and the injury sustained by the worker has not been assessed for permanent impairment; or
(c)          the worker, if the worker has not lodged an application for compensation for the injury; or
(d)          a dependant of the deceased worker, if the injury sustained by the worker results in the worker's death.

(2) The entitlement of a worker, or a dependant of a deceased
worker, to seek damages is subject to the provisions of this chapter.
(3) To remove any doubt, it is declared that subsection (1) abolishes
any entitlement of a person not mentioned in the subsection to seek
damage for an injury sustained by a worker."

Mr Hoare for the respondent opposes the application by Lara arguing that on the proper construction of WorkCover Queensland Act and more particularly s253 thereof the applicant Lara is not a person entitled to seek damages for injury sustained by him.
Mr Douglas Q C has argued that Lara's position is the same as that of a person who has applied for compensation and whose application has been rejected but who has sought review of the decision.
He argues that such a person may well succeed on review and in effect become at some time in the future a person within s253(i)(a) or (b).
Mr Hoare's case is that ss250 and 253 and especially sub-s253(3) are to be construed as making clear beyond dispute that the entitlement of any worker or person not mentioned in s253(1) to seek damages for an injury sustained by a worker is abolished.
The cases before me and argued on 11 February 2000 have shown that, leaving aside the operation of s253(3), the following persons, apart from the persons mentioned in s253(1), could be entitled to seek damages for an injury sustained by a worker:

1. A worker who has on the evidence a prima facie claim for common law damages for injury over a period of time and who has lodged an application for compensation for injury but whose application has not, at the time of hearing an application under s305, been decided by WorkCover and the decision communicated to the applicant worker.
2. A worker who on the evidence has a prima facie claim for common law damages for injury over a period of time and who has lodged with WorkCover an application for compensation which application has been rejected by WorkCover on the ground that the worker did not sustain an injury within s34 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.
3. A worker in 2 above who has instituted review and/or appeal procedures against WorkCover's decision to reject it.
The above list is not intended to be exhaustive.

None of the above three classes of persons falls within any of the classes in s253(1) and the legislature has made abundantly clear in s253(3) that any entitlement of a person not mentioned in s253(1) to seek damages for an injury sustained by a worker is abolished. "Entitlement" must mean an entitlement to seek damages for an injury sustained by a worker – see opening words of s253(1).

In Bonser v Melnacis & Anor [2000] QCA 13 judgment delivered 8 February 2000 (and from which I have quoted some extracts in Gamero) the Court of Appeal described s253 as the key section of the sections within "PART 2 – ENTITLEMENT CONDITIONS" – I respectfully agree with that view.
Another provision which is very relevant to the present matter is s252 which appears in "Part 1 – Interpretation and Application" of CHAPTER 5 – ACCESS TO DAMAGES.
s252 reads:
"Requirements of chapter to prevail and are substantive law
252.(1) If a provision of an Act or a rule of law is inconsistent with
this chapter, this chapter prevails.
(2) All the provisions of this chapter are provisions of substantive
law.
(3) However, subsection (2) does not affect minor variations in
procedure."

[19]

In

my

opinion

section

252(2)

reinforces

the

strength

of

s253(3).

In my opinion, Lara does not, on the material before me, fit within any of the classes of worker in s253(1). In respect of his application for compensation, Lara's present status is not mentioned in s253(i).
It is true that he may in time fall within s253(1)(a) or (b) but at the present time he does not.
The WorkCover Queensland Act has revolutionised the law applicable to projected or would be claims at common law by a worker against an employer for damages suffered by a worker.
The Act has erected a number of hurdles to be cleared by would be plaintiffs before being entitled to start the proceedings for damages. Proof that a would-be claimant falls within a class in s253 is one of the early hurdles. I mention also another hurdle "Part 5 – Pre-Court Procedures" the object of which is, as s279 says – "to enable WorkCover to enter into early negotiation with claimants to achieve early resolution of claims for damages before the start of proceedings" s280 is within Part 5.
I would add that I have considered whether or not Lara falls within s253(1)(c) on the basis that he did not lodge an application for compensation for the injury allegedly suffered over a period of time from 1/2/1997.
Had I decided that the applicant Lara was a person mentioned in s253(1)(c) then I would have made orders as I did in Gamero. I decided that Lara was not a person mentioned in s253(1)(c) because, for reasons I have given I consider that the applications for compensation and reviews made clear to WorkCover that although the culminating injury happened in August 1998 the compensation was claimed for injury continuing over a period of years before 25/8/1998..
I would add that, for reasons I have given in Reat (Appl. 839 of 2000) another matter in which I gave judgment today, WorkCover, in the present state of affairs concerning Lara's application, had no power to issue a conditional damages certificate under sections 262 or 265 of the WorkCover Act.

[27]

I

accept

Mr

Hoare's

submission

and

I

dismiss

the

application.

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Lara v TPS Engineering Pty Ltd t/a Queensland Tube Mills [2000] QSC 36

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

0

Bonser v Melnacis [2000] QCA 13

CITATION:	Jose German Lara v TPS Engineering Pty Ltd trading as Queensland Tube Mills & Another [2000] QSC 036
PARTIES:	JOSE GERMAN LARA (applicant) v TPS ENGINEERING PTY LTD ACN 003 201 232 Trading as QUEENSLAND TUBE MILLS (first respondent) and STAINLESS TUBE MILLS (AUST) PTY LTD ACN 006 709 208 Trading as QUEENSLAND TUBE MILLS (second respondent)
FILE NO:	680 of 2000 Brisbane Registry
DIVISION:	Trial Division
DELIVERED ON:	2 March 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 February 2000
JUDGE:	Shepherdson J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	MASTER AND SERVANT – CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES – WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – application under s305 of Act for leave to commence proceedings – whether applicant is "a person mentioned in" s253(1) and therefore entitled to seek damages for injury.
Bonser v Melnacis & Anor [2000] QCA 13 judgment 8/2/2000 referred to
COUNSEL:	Mr J S Douglas QC with Mr Rangiah for applicant Mr Hoare for respondents
SOLICITORS:	Murphy Schmidt for applicant Mullins & Mullins for respondent

(iii)	On 15 October 1997 Lara completed a second application for Workers' Compensation (Exhibit LTM03 to Murphy's affidavit filed 28/1/2000). This document described the injury as "tendinitis" with his right forearm being injured. The injury was said to have happened at the workshop 73 Pentex Street, Salisbury, but question 24 "When did the injury occur?" was not answered. Question 29 was again answered by ticking the box "Over a period of time". Question 32 "Was any person or anything responsible for the injury?" was answered "Yes" and details given "repetitive work". Question 34 "Have you previously claimed Workers' Compensation in Queensland?" was answered "No". This final answer may be thought surprising but other evidence before me shows that Lara has a poor understanding of English.
(iv)	By letter dated 11 March 1998 (Exhibit LTM04 to Murphy's affidavit filed 28/1/2000). WorkCover wrote to Lara rejecting the application dated 15 October 1997. Again it notified Lara of his right to review the decision and attached "Reasons for the Decision" including a list of the evidence considered and the facts established from the evidence. It was said the application had been rejected as the provisions of 34 of the Act had not been met. Section 34 contains "Meaning of Injury" but it is unnecessary to set it out.
(v)	On 22 September 1998 Lara signed a third application for compensation. I note that on this occasion he gave his surname as "Lara Barrera". Question 21 of that application which is Exhibit LTMO7 to Murphy's same affidavit asked "What is the nature of your injury?" but was unanswered. Question 22 "What part of the body is injured?" was answered "sprain & strain". The injury was said to have happened in the workshop at 76 Pentex Street, Salisbury (Q23). Question 24 "When did the injury happen?" was unanswered. Again Question 29 was answered by ticking the box "over a period of time" and Question 30 which asked for an explanation what the applicant was doing at the time and how the injury happened was answered – "buffing, polishing and (word indecipherable)". Question 32 "Was any person of anything responsible for the injury?" was answered "Yes" and details given "repetitive work".
(vi)	By letter dated 6 January 1999 (Exhibit LTM11 to Murphy's same affidavit) WorkCover notified Lara that the application dated 22 September 1998 had been rejected and again he was informed of his right to seek a review of the decision. Reasons for the decision were attached to that letter containing details of the evidence considered and the facts established.
(vii)	In the reasons for the decision the following appeared:

•	"34(Chapter 1 Part 4) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 states an 'injury' is a personal injury arising out of or in the course of employment if the employment is the major significant factor causing the injury.
•	based on the evidence to file, employment is not considered to be the major significant factor in causing your incapacity.
•	as such you are not considered to have sustained an 'injury' within the terms of Chapter 1 Part 4 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.
•	your claim is therefore one for rejection."

(xi)	By letter dated 28 April 1999 (Exhibit LTM-16 to Murphy's same affidavit) written to Murphy Schmidt the same review officer from WorkCover Statutory Review Unit referred to an application for review dated 2 February 1999 of a decision by WorkCover to reject Lara's claim for compensation as a result of an injury sustained over a period of time for review. The reference number of LTM16 is CW1633-98/980146826.
(xii)	Exhibits LTM-15 and LTM-16 are decisions in respect of two separate applications for review. Exhibit LTM16 notified Murphy Schmidt that the review officer had decided to set aside WorkCover's decision that Lara's claim be returned to WorkCover for further investigation. Possible carpal tunnel syndrome was mentioned.
(xiii)	By letter dated 11 November 1999 (Exhibit LTM17) Murphy Schmidt wrote to WorkCover (reference CW1633-98/980146826) in response to the letter LTM16. The letter said:

[2000] QSC 36

2/03/2000