Lau v WorkCover Queensland

Case [2000] QSC 271

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Lau v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QSC 271
PARTIES: KIN YING LAU
(applicant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(respondent)
FILE NO: 1387 of 2000
DIVISION: Trial
PROCEEDING: Application for a Declaration of Statutory Compliance
ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 13 July 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 19 June 2000
JUDGE: Muir J
ORDER:

(a)   Application dismissed

(b)  Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE – LEAVE TO PROCEED – application for a declaration of compliance with statutory requirements – whether complying notice of claim for damages under s 280 WorkCover Qld Act 1996 given – whether complying notice of claim given before expiry of limitation period – claim included claim for a shoulder injury for which no notice of assessment was issued – whether abandoning shoulder claim effected a retrospective amendment or variation so as to render the claim compliant
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE – requirements of WorkCover Qld Act 1996  re Notice of Claim

Re Robinson (unreported, Williams J, 29/1/99)
Re Lankheet (unreported, White J, 19/3/99)
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 255
Attorney-General (NSW) Ex Rel Franklins Stores Pty Ltd v Lizelle Pty Ltd (1997) 2 NSWLR 955, contrasted
McKelvie v Page [1999] 2 Qd R 259
David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 265, contrasted

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, ss 280, 308, 282, 291, 203, 253, 42, 259, 260, 304-5
WorkCover Queensland Regulations 1997, Regulation 74
Mr G Mullins for the applicant
Mr B Hoare for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Stephens & Tozer for the applicant
Thynne & Macartney for the respondent

Factual background

  1. The applicant/plaintiff was injured at work.  On 6 February 1998, WorkCover issued a notice of assessment in relation to her "left index finger lacerations and lumbar sacral spine".  

  1. On 12 March 1999, the applicant submitted a notice of claim for damages under s 280 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (“the Act”).  It claimed in respect of three sets of injuries which, broadly speaking, were:

(a) injuries to the finger and hand;

(b) injuries to the lower back;

(c) injuries to the right shoulder.

  1. The notice of assessment did not cover the shoulder injury. 

  1. On 20 July 1999, the applicant received a letter from WorkCover informing her that the notice of claim did not comply with the Act.

  1. On 13 September 1999, WorkCover's solicitors wrote to the applicant stating that the notice of claim for damages was a non-complying one.  The solicitors wrote again on 20 December 1999 asserting that the notice remained non-complying. The plaintiff maintained her claim for compensation in respect of the shoulder injury until after the expiration of the limitation period for her personal injuries claims on 6 February 2000.

The application

  1. The application is for a declaration that the applicant gave the respondent on 15 December 1999 a complying notice of claim in accordance with s…

Continue reading Lau v WorkCover Queensland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lau v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QSC 271
Case
[2000] QSC 271
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lau v WorkCover Queensland, the applicant, Mr Lau, sought leave to proceed with a claim for damages under section 280 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. The dispute centred on whether Mr Lau had complied with the statutory requirements for issuing a notice of claim and whether the notice of claim had been given before the limitation period expired. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether Mr Lau had issued a complying notice of claim as required by section 280 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. Specifically, the tribunal had to determine whether the notice of claim Mr Lau issued was sufficient when it did not include a notice of assessment for a shoulder injury. The tribunal also had to consider whether Mr Lau's abandonment of the shoulder injury claim could be construed as a retrospective amendment or variation of the claim to render it compliant.

The tribunal found that Mr Lau's notice of claim did not comply with the statutory requirements because it did not include a notice of assessment for the shoulder injury. The tribunal held that the failure to include a notice of assessment for the shoulder injury meant that the notice of claim was not compliant with the statutory requirements. Furthermore, the tribunal determined that abandoning the shoulder injury claim did not effect a retrospective amendment or variation of the claim so as to render it compliant. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed Mr Lau's application for leave to proceed.

The tribunal ordered that Mr Lau's application be dismissed and that he pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed. The tribunal did not grant Mr Lau leave to proceed with his claim for damages under section 280 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, and it directed that Mr Lau bear the costs associated with his unsuccessful application.

Orders

Orders of the court

(a) Application dismissed

(b) Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed

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.