QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Maher v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 313 |
PARTIES: | Maher, Trevor Desmond v Workers' Compensation Regulator |
CASE NO: | WC/2019/162 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator |
DELIVERED ON: | 10 September 2021 |
HEARING DATES: | 17 and 18 February 2021 |
| DATES OF WRITTEN CLOSING SUBMISSIONS: MEMBER: HEARD AT: | Appellant's submissions, 2 June 2021 McLennan IC Brisbane |
ORDERS: | 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The decision of the Respondent dated 8 August 2019 is set aside. 3. The Appellant's application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) is accepted. 4. The Respondent is to pay the Appellant's costs of the hearing, to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject to a further application to the Commission. |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR – where psychological injury is accepted – where injury caused by management action is accepted – whether this was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way – appeal upheld |
| LEGISLATION & OTHER INSTRUMENTS: CASES: | Isaac Regional Council Disciplinary Procedure (CORP-PRO-003) Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) s 197 Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 11, s 32, s 558, s 545 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) s 132 Blackwood v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 10 Church v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] ICQ 031 Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 9 Delaney v Q-COMP Review Unit [2005] QIC 11 Hardy v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 027 Kavanagh v Commonwealth (1960) 103 CLR 547 Keen v Workers' Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation [1998] SASC 7056 Lawton v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 99 Maher v Isaac Regional Council [2020] QIRC 191 Prizeman v Q-COMP [2005] ICQ 53 Promnitz v Gympie Regional Council [2015] ICQ 011 Q-COMP v Hohn [2008] QIC 56 Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 203 Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262 State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-Comp and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447 SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 91 ALJR 936 The Queen v A2; The Queen v Magennis; The Queen v Vaziri (2019) 93 ALJR 1106 Versace v Braun (2005) 178 QGIG 315 Waugh vSimon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 028 WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 170 QGIG 93 |
| APPEARANCES: | Mr T D Maher, the appellant in person with Mr T Wright, support person. Mr B I McMillan of counsel, directly instructed by the respondent. |
Reasons for Decision
Mr Trevor Desmond Maher (the Appellant) commenced employment with Isaac Regional Council (Council) on 29…
Continue reading Maher v Workers' Compensation Regulator
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Maher v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 313
- Case
- [2021] QIRC 313
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the management actions taken by the Council were reasonable and conducted in a reasonable manner, thereby potentially disqualifying Mr Maher's claim for compensation. The court had to consider the evidence presented regarding the reasonableness of the management actions taken over a specific period and whether Mr Maher was afforded procedural fairness during this process.
Deputy President Merrell examined the evidence and concluded that Mr Maher's claims regarding the lack of procedural fairness and unreasonable management actions were substantiated. The court found that the Council's actions did not meet the criteria of being reasonable and conducted in a reasonable manner as outlined in relevant statutes and precedents. As such, the appeal was upheld, and the decision of the Regulator was set aside. The court accepted Mr Maher's application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, the decision of the Regulator dated 8 August 2019 was set aside, Mr Maher's application for compensation was accepted, and the Regulator was directed to pay Mr Maher's costs of the hearing, to be agreed upon or determined by further application to the Commission if necessary.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The decision of the Respondent dated 8 August 2019 is set aside.
3. The Appellant's application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) is accepted.
4. The Respondent is to pay the Appellant's costs of the hearing, to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject to a further application to the Commission.
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
There were only two witnesses at the Hearing of this matter:a)Mr Trevor Maher, as the Appellant; andb)Mr Jeff Stewart-Harris, Director, Planning Environment and Community Services for Isaac Regional Council.Consideration of "Reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way" Justice Martin has observed in Davis v Blackwood that:The task of the Commission when applying s 32(5) does not involve setting out what it regards as the type of actions that would have been reasonable in the circumstances. There may be any number of actions or combinations of actions which would satisfy s 32(5). The proper task is to assess the management action which was taken and determine whether it was reasonable and whether it was taken in a reasonable way. Sometimes, that may involve consideration of what else might have been done but that will only be relevant to whether what was done was, in fact, reasonable.[15][15] [2014] ICQ 9, [47]. In Blackwood v Mahaffey, Justice Martin further said that:The difficulties in construing s 32(5) support the conclusion that more than one interpretation of s 32 is available and that, therefore, the beneficial interpretation approach should be applied. In the cases decided in this Court, any attempt to provide some type of formula or application of dominant cause has been rejected. Section 32 must be applied in light of the evidence accepted by the Commission. If, after considering all the relevant evidence and weighing up the factors which were accepted as having given rise to the personal injury, the Commission forms a conclusion that any of the conduct referred to in s 32(5) does not, on balance, displace the evidence in favour of the worker then a finding in the workers favour must follow.[16][16] [2016] ICQ 10, [57]. Deputy President Merrell explained in State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) v Workers' Compensation Regulator[17] that:[17] [2020] QIRC 097, [25] – [28]. The Respondent submitted a chronology of relevant events,[28] upon which the table below is based.[28] Respondent's closing submissions, filed 28 June 2021, Attachment A, pages 17 - 18. Mr Maher submitted that the three-month process, culminating in Council issuing of the show cause notice to him on 23 August 2018, did not constitute "reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way". Mr Maher asserted that he was not afforded procedural fairness in various aspects of the process undertaken by Council. He identified concerns with respect to each of the following areas: suspension from duty; allegations; show cause notice; disciplinary procedure and process. Mr Maher summarised his complaints to be:[31][31] Appellant's closing submissions filed 2 June 2021, pages 12 – 13. While Mr Maher's Statement of Facts and Contentions[32] lists 40 'stressors', 77 'facts' and 66 'contentions', the parties agreed that the scope of matters be confined to the period commencing on or about 21 May 2018 to 23 August 2018 at the Mention before me on 28 January 2021.[33] [32] Appellant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 19 December 2020, List of Stressors.[33] Transcript of Mention on 28 January 2021, T 1-7.