SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Lowis v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] QSC 5 PARTIES: SHANNON WILLIAM LOWIS
(applicant)
v
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR
(respondent)FILE NO/S: No s 50 of 2017 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Mackay DELIVERED ON: 17 January 2019 DELIVERED AT: Rockhampton HEARING DATE: 31 October 2018 JUDGE: Crow J ORDER: Application dismissed. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW –
GROUNDS OF REVIEW – where the applicant claims to have suffered psychological stress and health issues as a result of workplace sexual harassment – whether the respondent erred in considering the exercise of a discretion to grant an extension of time – whether the respondents’ breached any rule of natural justice – whether the respondents’ took into account any irrelevant considerations
– whether the respondents’ took into account relevant considerations - whether the respondents made any jurisdictional error
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20, s 23(b)
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 11, s 48, s 131(5), s 134(2), s 541, s 550(3), s 542
Carmody v WorkCover Queensland (1998) 157 QGIG 119
South Australia v O’Shea (1987) 163 CLR 378 Burragubba & Ors v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines & Anor [2017] QCA 179
COUNSEL: The applicant appeared for himself
C M Hartigan for the respondent
SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared for himself
Crown Solicitor for the respondent
Introduction
On 6 October 2017, the applicant, Mr Lowis, filed an application for a statutory order of review pursuant to s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). Application was made to review the decision of the respondent (“Regulator”) made on 12 September 2017 to refuse to grant Mr Lowis an extension of time to lodge an appeal pursuant to s 550(3) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the review decision”).
Background
In order to understand Mr Lowis’ application, it is necessary to set out the factual background. Mr Lowis is a registered civil engineer. Mr Lowis was in a domestic relationship with Ms Inez Danielle Nixon from in or about 2012 to August 2016. Mr Lowis and Ms Nixon have two children. Ms Nixon was employed as a permanent part-time cook in Mackay.
Mr Lowis and Ms Nixon separated in August 2016 and in August 2016, Ms Nixon filed for bankruptcy as a result of “this matter”.
By a written contract entitled “Personal Services Consultancy Agreement” between North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation Limited (“NQBP”) and Hardcastle Engineering and Project Services, Shannon Lowis, the contractor provided engineering services to NQBP from 4 April 2014 to 9 October 2014 at the rate of $1,000 per day. The contract provided that “the services are being undertaken personally by Shannon Lowis unless otherwise authorised in writing by the principle”. It is apparent that the contract was extended, however, the documentation concerning the extension of…
Continue reading Lowis v Workers' Compensation Regulator
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lowis v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QSC 5
- Case
- [2019] QSC 5
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issue before the court was whether the Regulator had properly exercised its discretion in denying the applicant's request for an extension of time to lodge her claim. The court also considered whether the Regulator had breached any rules of natural justice by not allowing the applicant to respond to new evidence presented by the respondent, and whether the Regulator had taken into account any irrelevant considerations or failed to consider relevant ones. Additionally, the court examined if the Regulator had made any jurisdictional errors in its decision-making process.
In assessing the matter, the court held that the Regulator had not breached any rules of natural justice, as the applicant had been given an adequate opportunity to present her case and respond to the evidence. The court also found that the Regulator had not taken into account any irrelevant considerations, nor had they failed to consider any relevant ones. Furthermore, the court determined that the Regulator had not made any jurisdictional errors in exercising its discretion. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the decision of the Regulator was upheld.
The court's final order was to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review, affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator of New South Wales. The court found no basis for interference with the Regulator's decision, as it had properly exercised its discretion and followed the applicable legal principles in reaching its conclusion.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application 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.