Lawler v Workers' Compensation Regulator; Ex parte - [2016] QIRC 87

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Lawler v Workers' Compensation Regulator; Ex parte Council of the City of Gold Coast [2016] QIRC 087
PARTIES:	Council of the City of Gold Coast (Applicant) Lawler, William (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2016/102
PROCEEDING:	Objection to Notices of Non-Party Disclosure
DELIVERED ON: HEARING DATE:	16 August 2016 15 August 2016
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner Neate
ORDER:	The two Notices of Non-Party Disclosure dated 20 July 2016 directed to the CEO of the Council of the City of Gold Coast in relation to WC/2016/102 be set aside.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - Psychiatric or psychological injury - appellant seeks non-party disclosure from employer - documents sought refer to an event after his injury and the date of his application for compensation - whether documents should be disclosed - employer contends documents not relevant to appeal - other bases for objection PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Notices of Non-Party Disclosure - two notices issued - objection that documents sought in one notice are not relevant to issue on appeal - objection that the notice lacks particulars of documents sought - whether documents sought are confidential - no objection made in writing to second notice - whether extension of time to lodge objection in writing should be granted - Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011
CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 32 Industrial Relations Act 1999 ss 274, 320 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 rr 64E, 64F, 64G Delaney v Q-COMP Review Unit [2005] QIC 11; 178 QGIG 197 WorkCover Queensland v Heit [2000] QIC 22; 164 QGIG 121
APPEARANCES:	Mr M. Wichlinski for the Council of the City of Gold Coast Mr W. Lawler, Appellant Mr P. Bush, appeals officer for the Workers Compensation Regulator

Decision

The issue in the present proceeding is whether the Council of the City of Gold Coast ("the City") should produce documents identified in two Notices of Non-Party Disclosure in regard to a claim for workers' compensation made by William Lawler.
Background
During the period when the circumstances giving rise to his application for compensation occurred, Mr Lawler was employed by the City as the Executive Coordinator, Environment and Climate Change. He claims to have suffered a work related injury as a result of bullying and harassment by his line manager, Kim Mahoney.
In January 2016 he lodged an application for compensation with CityCover for a condition he described as "psychological injury." He nominated that his injury first occurred in January 2014 and was "ongoing" at the date of lodgement. Mr Lawler sought a review by the Workers' Compensation Regulator of the failure of CityCover to make a decision on the application

It appears from the reasons for the Regulator's Senior Review Officer's decision ("the review decision") that Mr Lawler was diagnosed by Dr Teck Wong on 28 July 2015 as having generalised anxiety with depressive symptoms. The Senior Review Officer appears to have accepted that Mr Lawler first sustained an injury of a psychological condition…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lawler v Workers' Compensation Regulator; Ex parte 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] QIRC 87
Decision Date: 16 August 2016 15 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William Lawler, an appellant, sought non-party disclosure from the City of Gold Coast, the employer, in relation to a workers' compensation claim. The City issued two Notices of Non-Party Disclosure. The first notice directed the production of documents that refer to an event after the date of the appellant's injury and the date of his application for compensation. The City objected to the first notice on several grounds, including the relevance of the documents to the issue on appeal, the lack of particulars of the documents sought, and the confidentiality of the documents. The City did not object in writing to the second notice. The appellant applied for an extension of time to lodge an objection to the second notice. The legal issues in the case were whether the documents sought in the first notice should be disclosed and whether the City's objection to the first notice was valid. The court considered the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 in its decision. The court found that the documents sought in the first notice were not relevant to the issue on appeal and that the City's objection to the first notice was valid. The court also found that the City's objection to the second notice was not valid as it was not lodged in writing within the required time. The court set aside both notices.

Orders

Orders of the court

The two Notices of Non-Party Disclosure dated 20 July 2016 directed to the CEO of the Council of the City of Gold Coast in relation to WC/2016/102 be set aside.

Background

Background to the litigation

The issue in the present proceeding is whether the Council of the City of Gold Coast ("the City") should produce documents identified in two Notices of Non-Party Disclosure in regard to a claim for workers' compensation made by William Lawler.Background During the period when the circumstances giving rise to his application for compensation occurred, Mr Lawler was employed by the City as the Executive Coordinator, Environment and Climate Change. He claims to have suffered a work related injury as a result of bullying and harassment by his line manager, Kim Mahoney. In January 2016 he lodged an application for compensation with CityCover for a condition he described as "psychological injury." He nominated that his injury first occurred in January 2014 and was "ongoing" at the date of lodgement. Mr Lawler sought a review by the Workers' Compensation Regulator of the failure of CityCover to make a decision on the application It appears from the reasons for the Regulator's Senior Review Officer's decision ("the review decision") that Mr Lawler was diagnosed by Dr Teck Wong on 28 July 2015 as having generalised anxiety with depressive symptoms. The Senior Review Officer appears to have accepted that Mr Lawler first sustained an injury of a psychological condition in relation to issues arising out of his employment on that date. Accordingly, events which occurred after that date did not fall for consideration in the review decision. In summary, the Senior Review Officer determined that Mr Lawler sustained a personal injury of a psychological nature, the injury arose out of his employment, his employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury, and the injury arose out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by his employer in connection with his employment. Consequently, the Senior Review Officer concluded that the provisions of s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ("the Act") exclude the psychological condition sustained by Mr Lawler from the definition of "injury" within s 32(1) of the Act. On 17 June 2016, Mr Lawler lodged with the Industrial Registrar his Notice of Appeal under the Act. Mr Lawler appeals against the review decision dated 25 May 2016 to reject his application for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Act. By Notice of Non-Party Disclosure dated 20 July 2016 ("the First Notice"), the CEO of the City of Gold Coast ("the City") was required to produce the following documents dated July 2016:(a)complaint made by Mr Lau Chean regarding Ms Mahoney threatening physical violence against Mr Jack Bryce(b)statement of Mr Lau Chean(c)statement of Mr Jack Bryce(d)statement of others(e)email correspondence from or to Ms Dyan Currie relating to the physical violence threatened by Ms Mahoney. The First Notice identifies the matter about which the documents are relevant as an incident in June or early July 2016 in which, it is alleged, Ms Mahoney aggressively threatened Mr Bryce with physical violence after having denigrated him in a common work area in front of other employees. According to Mr Lawler, Mr Chean lodged a complaint to Ms Currie and the matter was investigated internally by the City. Witnesses, including Mr Chean and Mr Bryce, provided statements about the incident.

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.