Murray v Workers' Compensation Regulator

The case of Murray v Workers' Compensation Regulator involved an appeal against the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The Appellant, who had sustained a workplace injury on 8 May 2014, sought to challenge the Regulator's decision to reject his workers' compensation claim on the basis that it was lodged outside the six-month statutory period stipulated under s 131(1) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 (Qld). The Appellant argued that he had a reasonable excuse for the delay due to the negligence of his solicitors, Slater and Gordon, who initially lodged the claim under the Personal Injury Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) instead of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

The court was required to determine whether the Appellant's failure to lodge the claim within the statutory period was due to a reasonable cause as provided under s 131(5)(c) of the Act, which would allow the court to waive the time limit. The Appellant contended that his reliance on his solicitors' advice constituted a reasonable cause, while the Regulator argued that the Appellant and his solicitors were aware that the claim was likely a workers' compensation claim prior to the expiry of the limitation period, and thus, their inaction could not be considered reasonable.

In its reasoning, the court considered various authorities on the concept of reasonable cause, including Quinlivan v Portland Harbour Trust, Black v City of South Melbourne, and Sophron v The Nominal Defendant, among others. The court acknowledged that while there are circumstances where a client may not be held responsible for a solicitor's delay, the Appellant's case did not meet the threshold for a reasonable excuse. The court noted that the Appellant and his solicitors were on notice that the claim was likely a workers' compensation claim well before the limitation period expired, and thus, their failure to act upon this knowledge could not be considered reasonable.

Ultimately, the court found that the Appellant's solicitors were negligent in misadvising on the appropriate legislative framework for the claim, but this did not absolve the Appellant of responsibility for the delay. The court upheld the appeal, set aside the Regulator's decision, and directed the Regulator to waive the time limit for lodging the claim. The court also ordered the Regulator to pay the Appellant's costs of the appeal.