PB v WorkCover Queensland Pty Ltd - [2020] QCATA 29

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

PB v WorkCover Queensland Pty Ltd [2020] QCATA 29

PARTIES: PB

(applicant/appellant)

v

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL137-18

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

OCL045-17

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2020

HEARING DATE:

8 October 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown, Presiding
Member Browne

ORDERS:
1.   Application for leave to rely upon fresh evidence refused.

2.   Leave to appeal refused.

3.   Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant alleged that the respondent collected and used information in processing his workers’ compensation claim in breach of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) – where the Tribunal found that the respondent acted in breach of information privacy principles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 and not 7, 8, 9 and 10 - where the applicant seeks leave to appeal - where the applicant claims that the Tribunal accepted and relied on evidence that was false and misleading information – where the applicant claims that the Tribunal erroneously relied on s 532C of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), a provision that was not in effect at the time the applicant made his workers’ compensation claim - where the provisions of s 532C is largely in the same terms as the repealed s 519 – where the differences are not material – where it was open to the Tribunal to make relevant findings it did – where the applicant claims an error in the Tribunal’s finding that the respondent did not breach IPPs 7, 8, 9 and 10 – where no error found in the decision below – where the applicant claims that the Tribunal failed to observe rules of natural justice in conducting the hearing – where the applicant claims that the learned Member did not bring an impartial mind to the determination of issues – where the applicant has failed to identify any occasion where he was denied an opportunity to present his case, cross-examine witnesses or make submissions – where claim not merited

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant seeks leave to rely upon fresh evidence not before the Tribunal below– where the applicant has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why the material could not have been obtained at the time of the proceeding below – where leave to rely upon fresh evidence not merited

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld), s 178, s 178(a), s 178(a)(v), s 178(d)
Public Records Act 2002 (Qld), s 13
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 Act (Qld), s 100, s 102, s 122(3)
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32, s 134(1), s 279, s 532C, s 532C(1)(b)

Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Ellis & Anor v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCATA 93
Fox v Percy (2003)…

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 PB v WorkCover Queensland Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: PB v WorkCover Queensland Pty Ltd [2020] QCATA 29
Case: [2020] QCATA 29
Decision Date: 9 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case sought leave to appeal a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) which found that the respondent, WorkCover Queensland, had breached certain information privacy principles in handling the applicant's workers' compensation claim. The applicant argued that QCAT erred in accepting false and misleading evidence, misapplied a provision of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), and failed to observe natural justice by not allowing him to adequately present his case. The applicant also sought leave to rely on fresh evidence that was not presented to QCAT.

The court identified several key legal issues, including whether QCAT made an error in finding that certain information privacy principles were not breached, whether QCAT misapplied a statutory provision, and if there was a failure to observe natural justice. Additionally, the court examined whether the applicant could rely on fresh evidence and if leave to appeal should be granted. The applicant argued that QCAT accepted evidence that was false and misleading, and that the Tribunal incorrectly applied section 532C of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The applicant further contended that QCAT did not allow him to adequately present his case, and that he should be permitted to rely on fresh evidence that was not available at the time of the original proceedings.

The court found no merit in the applicant's claims. It held that QCAT was entitled to make the findings it did, including that certain information privacy principles were not breached. The court also found that QCAT did not misapply section 532C of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), as the differences between the repealed section 519 and section 532C were not material. The court determined that the applicant had not been denied an opportunity to present his case, cross-examine witnesses, or make submissions, and thus found no failure to observe natural justice. Finally, the court held that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for why the fresh evidence could not have been obtained at the time of the original proceedings, and thus refused leave to rely on this fresh evidence.

The court ordered that leave to appeal be refused and the appeal be dismissed. Additionally, the court refused the applicant's application for leave to rely upon fresh evidence not before QCAT.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to rely upon fresh evidence refused.

2. Leave to appeal refused.

3. 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:	PB v WorkCover Queensland Pty Ltd [2020] QCATA 29
PARTIES:	PB
(applicant/appellant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND PTY LTD
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL137-18
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	OCL045-17
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	9 March 2020
HEARING DATE:	8 October 2019
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Senior Member Brown, Presiding Member Browne
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to rely upon fresh evidence refused. 2. Leave to appeal refused. 3. Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant alleged that the respondent collected and used information in processing his workers’ compensation claim in breach of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) – where the Tribunal found that the respondent acted in breach of information privacy principles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 and not 7, 8, 9 and 10 - where the applicant seeks leave to appeal - where the applicant claims that the Tribunal accepted and relied on evidence that was false and misleading information – where the applicant claims that the Tribunal erroneously relied on s 532C of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), a provision that was not in effect at the time the applicant made his workers’ compensation claim - where the provisions of s 532C is largely in the same terms as the repealed s 519 – where the differences are not material – where it was open to the Tribunal to make relevant findings it did – where the applicant claims an error in the Tribunal’s finding that the respondent did not breach IPPs 7, 8, 9 and 10 – where no error found in the decision below – where the applicant claims that the Tribunal failed to observe rules of natural justice in conducting the hearing – where the applicant claims that the learned Member did not bring an impartial mind to the determination of issues – where the applicant has failed to identify any occasion where he was denied an opportunity to present his case, cross-examine witnesses or make submissions – where claim not merited APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant seeks leave to rely upon fresh evidence not before the Tribunal below– where the applicant has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why the material could not have been obtained at the time of the proceeding below – where leave to rely upon fresh evidence not merited Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld), s 178, s 178(a), s 178(a)(v), s 178(d) Public Records Act 2002 (Qld), s 13 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 Act (Qld), s 100, s 102, s 122(3) Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32, s 134(1), s 279, s 532C, s 532C(1)(b) Cachia v Grech [2009] NSWCA 232 Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 Ellis & Anor v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCATA 93 Fox v Percy (2003)…