Lau v WorkCover Queensland

Case [2002] QCA 244

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lau v WorkCover Queensland [2002] QCA 244

PARTIES:

KIN YING LAU
(applicant/appellant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO:

Appeal No 6843 of 2000
SC No 3947 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 July 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 March 2002

JUDGES:

McPherson and Williams JJA and Byrne J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; McPherson JA and Byrne J concurring as to the orders made, Williams JA dissenting

ORDERS:

Appeal allowed with costs of an incidental to the appeal. Orders of the primary judge set aside. Instead it should be declared that, in respect of the appellant’s injuries mentioned in her notice of claim for damages dated 12 March 1999 (other than her right shoulder pain) that notice is a complying notice of claim within the meaning of s308(1)(a)(i) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.  Further order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of an incidental to the proceedings below.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS – NOTICE OF ACCIDENT – EFFECT OF INACCURACY IN OR FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE – EXCUSES FOR FAILURE OR INACCURACY – MISTAKE OR IGNORANCE – whether complying notice of claim given before expiry of limitation period – where the notice of claim for damages included “alleged” non- assessed shoulder pain – whether the inclusion of a non–assessed injury meant that the notice of claim for damages was not a “complying notice of claim” – whether the notice satisfied the requirements of s. 280 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION – INTERPRETATION ACTS AND CLAUSES – PARTICULAR ACTS AND ORDINANCES – QUEENSLAND – WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – where the limitation period expired without the institution of proceedings – where there is provision under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 for the institution of proceedings after the expiration of the limitation period, if a declaration is obtained that the notice of claim for damages had been given in accordance with s. 280 – where such a declaration is refused – whether the disclosure obligation is confined to “assessed” injuries – whether, even if the notice complies with s. 280, WorkCover’s decision is beyond curial examination.

Anagnostou v Woolworths Limited [2001] 2 Qd R 1, considered
Booker v State Rail Authority of NSW (No 2) (1993) 31 NSWLR 402, cited
Bonser v Melnacis [2002] 1 Qd R 1, distinguished
Canning v Brisbane City Council [2001] 2 Qd R 16, cited
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of  Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297, cited
Conway v WorkCover [2000] QSC 406, cited
Day v State of Queensland [2000] QSC 401, cited
Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (1999) 47 NSWLR 340, cited
Horinack v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2001] 2 Qd R 266, cited
Re Lankheet [1999] QSC 51, considered
Liversidge v…

Continue reading Lau v WorkCover Queensland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lau v WorkCover Queensland [2002] QCA 244
Case
[2002] QCA 244
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lau, a worker, sought compensation from WorkCover Queensland following an accident at work. The dispute centred on whether the notice of the accident was accurate and timely, as required by the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. Specifically, the issue was whether the inclusion of an "alleged" non-assessed shoulder pain in the notice of claim for damages rendered the notice invalid. The matter was before the court to determine whether the notice complied with the requirements of section 280 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, and whether the limitation period could be extended if the notice was deemed compliant.

The court had to decide whether the notice of claim was a "complying notice" under section 280 of the Act, and if the failure to include a non-assessed injury meant that the notice was not compliant. The court also considered whether the disclosure obligation under the Act was limited to "assessed" injuries, and whether the decision of WorkCover Queensland was beyond curial examination. The court examined the statutory requirements for giving a notice of claim and the implications of inaccuracies or omissions in the notice.

The court held that the notice of claim for damages was a "complying notice" within the meaning of section 308(1)(a)(i) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, despite the inclusion of the "alleged" non-assessed shoulder pain. The court found that the notice satisfied the requirements of section 280, and that the limitation period could be extended if a declaration was obtained that the notice had been given in accordance with section 280. The court set aside the orders of the primary judge and declared that the notice of claim for damages was a complying notice for all injuries other than the right shoulder pain. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of an incidental to the proceedings below.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed with costs of an incidental to the appeal. Orders of the primary judge set aside. Instead it should be declared that, in respect of the appellant’s injuries mentioned in her notice of claim for damages dated 12 March 1999 (other than her right shoulder pain) that notice is a complying notice of claim within the meaning of s308(1)(a)(i) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. Further order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of an incidental to the proceedings below.

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.