Mehran Samimi v Q-Comp - [2013] QDC 203

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mehran Samimi v Q-Comp [2013] QDC 203

PARTIES:

MEHRAN SAMIMI

(Appellant)

And

Q-COMP

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

1536/13

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal under s222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Q) against conviction and consequential order for repayment of compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 August 2013

JUDGE:

Robin QC, DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation Act 2003 (Q) s136, s533, s535, s537

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - fraud- particular acts - whether appellant engaged in a calling within the definition: “activity ordinarily giving rise to the receipt of remuneration or reward

COUNSEL:

A M Nelson for the Appellant

J O McClymont for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Alexander Law for the Appellant

Q-Comp for the Respondent

Mr Samimi appeals under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 against his conviction by a Magistrate on 18 April 2013 of an offence under s 533 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 after a two day trial earlier in the month. The appeal is brought on the ground that her Honour erred in categorising Mr Samimi’s activities revealed by the evidence as a “calling” – this being a term defined in the Act (Schedule 6):
“calling means any activity ordinarily giving rise to the receipt of remuneration or reward including self-employment or the performance of an occupation, trade, profession, or carrying on of a business, whether or not the person performing the activity received remuneration.”
There is an appeal, should the conviction stand, against so much of her Honour’s consequential orders as required repayment to the complainant Q-Comp, or to the employer/self-insurer (which made compensation payments) of all compensation amounts paid after Mr Samimi (according to Q-Comp) “engaged in a calling”, on the basis that such an outcome was mandatory under s 537:
“537 Fraud and related offences end entitlement to compensation and damages
(1)This section applies if a person is convicted of any of the following offences committed against an insurer in relation to an application for compensation or a claim for damages—
(a) an offence under section 533;
(b) an offence or an attempt to commit an offence under the Criminal Code, section 123, 408C or 488.
(2)Any entitlement the person may have to compensation or damages for the injury, and any existing claim for compensation or damages, ends.
(3)If, in the proceeding for the offence, the prosecution proves the person obtained payment of compensation or damages by the insurer, by conduct that is the offence, then, whether or not a penalty is imposed, the court must, on application by the insurer, order the person to repay the insurer all amounts of compensation or damages paid to or on account of the person as a result of the commission of the offence.
(4) The Authority may represent the self-insurer for subsection (3).
(5)An order made by a court under subsection (3) may be enforced as if it were an order made by a court…

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 Mehran Samimi v Q-Comp

Details

AGLC: Mehran Samimi v Q-Comp [2013] QDC 203
Case: [2013] QDC 203
Decision Date: 9 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mehran Samimi, an appellant, was in dispute with Q-Comp, the respondent, over workers' compensation payments. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The central issue in this case was whether Samimi had engaged in a calling within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act 2003 (Q). Specifically, the court had to determine if the activities Samimi was involved in qualified as an "activity ordinarily giving rise to the receipt of remuneration or reward" and if these activities were part of a calling that would make him ineligible for workers' compensation benefits.

The court considered the nature of Samimi's activities and whether they were sufficiently organised or regular to constitute a calling. The key legal question was whether these activities were akin to a trade or profession, which would exclude him from claiming workers' compensation benefits. The court examined the specific provisions of the Act, particularly sections 136, 533, 535, and 537, to interpret the meaning of "calling" and to apply it to the facts of this case. After reviewing the evidence and the statutory language, the court concluded that Samimi's activities did not meet the threshold to be considered a calling, thus affirming the original decision.

The Court of Appeal found that Samimi's activities were not sufficiently regular or organised to be classified as a calling. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision that Samimi was entitled to workers' compensation benefits was upheld. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the factual findings about the nature of Samimi's activities.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.

CITATION:	Mehran Samimi v Q-Comp [2013] QDC 203
PARTIES:	MEHRAN SAMIMI (Appellant) And Q-COMP (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	1536/13
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal under s222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Q) against conviction and consequential order for repayment of compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 September 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 August 2013
JUDGE:	Robin QC, DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	Workers Compensation Act 2003 (Q) s136, s533, s535, s537 WORKERS' COMPENSATION - fraud- particular acts - whether appellant engaged in a calling within the definition: “activity ordinarily giving rise to the receipt of remuneration or reward
COUNSEL:	A M Nelson for the Appellant J O McClymont for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Alexander Law for the Appellant Q-Comp for the Respondent