N B Hayward Pty Ltd v Thomas - [2014] QDC 147

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

N B Hayward Pty Ltd v Thomas [2014] QDC 147

PARTIES:

N B HAYWARD PTY LTD
(applicant)

v

BRETT DAVID THOMAS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2151/14

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 June 2014

JUDGE:

Horneman-Wren SC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The name of the applicant be changed from “N B Hayward Pty Ltd” to “WorkCover Queensland”.

2.   The application is dismissed.

3.   The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKER’S COMPENSATION – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – where the respondent alleges he was injured while employed by the applicant – where the respondent disclosed a period of incarceration – where the applicant sought further disclosure and execution of an authority pursuant to s 279 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the authority was unrestricted – where the respondent refused to execute that authority – whether s 279 affords the applicant the right to request information from the respondent – whether the applicant can seek an order that the respondent execute an authority – whether an unrestricted authority is supported by s 279

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 3, s 37, s 45, s 50
Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 1994 (Qld), r 19
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 273, s 275(7), s 279, s 279(1)(a), s 279(1)(b), s 280, s 281, s 287
Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2005] 1 Qd R 204

COUNSEL:

Mr G C O’Driscoll for the applicant

Mr R Myers for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

BT Lawyers for the applicant

Shine Lawyers for the respondent

The background to the application

The respondent alleges that he sustained injury to his left knee in the course of his employment with N B Hayward Pty Ltd as a boilermaker on 12 June 2013. On 19 February 2014 the respondent completed a notice of claim for damages which was given to the applicant pursuant to s 275 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“WCRA”).

In the notice of claim the respondent disclosed that he had been incarcerated for, or during, the period from 1993 to 2010. The disclosure was made in the section of the notice of claim, which is an approved form under the Act[1], which required the claimant to provide details of employment and income for the period of three years before the event resulting in the injury, and the period since.
[1]Section 586(2) WCRA.

As required by s 275(7) the notice of claim was accompanied by the respondent’s written authority allowing the insurer to obtain information, including copies of documents relevant to the claim in the possession of various entities. Those entities included, in accordance with s 275(7)(f), “a department, agency or instrumentality of the Commonwealth or the State”.

On 18 March 2014 BT Lawyers wrote to the respondent’s solicitors. The letter, amongst other things, sought…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read N B Hayward Pty Ltd v Thomas and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QDC 147
Decision Date: 26 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between WorkCover Queensland, formerly N B Hayward Pty Ltd, and the respondent, Thomas. Thomas alleged that he was injured during his employment with the applicant. Thomas disclosed a period of incarceration, and the applicant sought further information and the execution of an authority under s 279 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The applicant requested an unrestricted authority, which Thomas refused to execute. The court was required to determine if s 279 allows the applicant to request information from the respondent, if it can seek an order for the respondent to execute an authority, and if an unrestricted authority is supported by the section.

The court examined the scope of s 279, finding that it allows the applicant to request information but does not permit it to seek an order compelling the respondent to execute an authority. The court held that the authority must be reasonable and proportionate to the information sought, and an unrestricted authority was not justified. The court noted that the applicant had access to other avenues to obtain necessary information, including subpoenas and court orders. The court concluded that the applicant's request for an unrestricted authority exceeded the scope of s 279.

The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application, to be assessed on the standard basis. The court also granted the applicant's motion to change its name from “N B Hayward Pty Ltd” to “WorkCover Queensland”. The court found that the applicant's request for an unrestricted authority was not supported by s 279 and that the authority must be reasonable and proportionate to the information sought. The court held that the applicant had other means available to obtain the necessary information, and therefore, the application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The name of the applicant be changed from “N B Hayward Pty Ltd” to “WorkCover Queensland”.

2. The application is dismissed.

3. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.

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:	N B Hayward Pty Ltd v Thomas [2014] QDC 147
PARTIES:	N B HAYWARD PTY LTD (applicant) v BRETT DAVID THOMAS (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	2151/14
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 June 2014
JUDGE:	Horneman-Wren SC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The name of the applicant be changed from “N B Hayward Pty Ltd” to “WorkCover Queensland”. 2. The application is dismissed. 3. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKER’S COMPENSATION – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – where the respondent alleges he was injured while employed by the applicant – where the respondent disclosed a period of incarceration – where the applicant sought further disclosure and execution of an authority pursuant to s 279 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the authority was unrestricted – where the respondent refused to execute that authority – whether s 279 affords the applicant the right to request information from the respondent – whether the applicant can seek an order that the respondent execute an authority – whether an unrestricted authority is supported by s 279 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 3, s 37, s 45, s 50 Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 1994 (Qld), r 19 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 273, s 275(7), s 279, s 279(1)(a), s 279(1)(b), s 280, s 281, s 287 Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2005] 1 Qd R 204
COUNSEL:	Mr G C O’Driscoll for the applicant Mr R Myers for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	BT Lawyers for the applicant Shine Lawyers for the respondent