Mason v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2022] QIRC 202

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION: PARTIES:	Mason v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 202 Mason, Barry Kenneth (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2021/23
PROCEEDING:	Workers' Compensation Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	7 June 2022
MEMBER: HEARD AT: ORDER:	McLennan IC On the papers That the appeal is dismissed pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.
CATCHWORDS: LEGISLATION: CASES:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – where appellant failed to comply with directions orders – consideration of r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 – where appeal is dismissed Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 6, r 45 Cady v Capital SMART Repairs Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] QIRC 144 Cooper v Hopgood & Ganim [1998] QCA 114 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd [1990] 98 ALR 200 Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor [2001] QCA 176 Seymour v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 061 Smith v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 070 Treanor v State of Queensland [2019] QIRC 146 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Bero [2019] QIRC 36 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Varga [2019] QIRC 028

Reasons for Decision

Background

On 8 March 2022, Mr Barry Mason (the Appellant) filed an appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator (the Respondent) dated 19 October 2020. The Respondent had decided to confirm the decision of the Arnott's Workers' Compensation Unit to reject the Appellant's application for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).[1]
[1] Letter from Mr S. May to Smith's Lawyers, 19 October 2020.
On 24 March 2021, a Delegated Officer for the Industrial Registrar issued a Directions Order with respect to the disclosure of documents.

The Appellant filed Form 29 Notices of non-party disclosure on 30 April 2021, 7 May 2021, 6 October 2021 and 5 November 2021 as well as Form 4 Applications in existing proceedings seeking an order for compliance with respect to those Notices on 2 June 2021, 27 July 2021 and 1 November 2021 respectively.

On 23 July 2021, I decided the Form 4 Application filed on 2 June 2021 on the papers.[2] The remaining Applications were either dealt with between the parties or discontinued by the Appellant.
[2] Mason v Arnott's Biscuits Ltd [2021] QIRC 250.

On 4 November 2021, I held a conference to discuss procedural matters in the Appeal and also to discuss the Notices and Applications that had delayed the progression of the matter.

On 5 November 2021, I issued a Further Directions Order requiring the filing of Statements of Facts and Contentions and lists of witnesses as well as the exchange of outlines of evidence. I directed that a second conference be held once all directions had been finalised.

On 10 December 2021, the Appellant sought to file his Statement of Facts and Contentions.

On 10 January 2022, the Appellant sought to…

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.

Continue reading Mason v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Mason v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 202
Case: [2022] QIRC 202
Decision Date: 7 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mason was an employee who had been injured in the course of their employment. They applied for workers' compensation benefits, which were initially approved but subsequently suspended by the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The matter came before the Industrial Court of Queensland, where Mason appealed the decision. The court had to determine whether Mason was entitled to compensation and whether the Regulator had correctly exercised their discretion in suspending the benefits.

The court considered whether Mason had complied with the directions orders issued by the Tribunal. The Regulator argued that Mason had failed to comply with the orders, which justified the suspension of benefits. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, specifically rule 45, which deals with the dismissal of appeals. The court found that Mason had not complied with the directions orders and that the Regulator had acted within their powers in suspending the benefits.

The court held that Mason's failure to comply with the directions orders was a sufficient ground for dismissing the appeal under rule 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011. The court noted that the Regulator had followed the correct procedure in suspending the benefits and that Mason had not provided any evidence to challenge the Regulator's decision. The court found that the Regulator's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the law.

The appeal was dismissed, and the suspension of benefits was upheld. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed pursuant to rule 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011. The court did not make any further orders, as the issue of entitlement to compensation had not been the subject of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

McLennan IC

On the papers

That the appeal is dismissed pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.

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.