Peck v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2022] QIRC 189

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Peck v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 189
PARTIES:	Peck, Ricky (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO.:	WC/2022/26
PROCEEDING:	Application to be represented by a lawyer
DELIVERED ON:	31 May 2022
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Merrell DP On the papers
ORDER:	Pursuant to s 552B(b) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the Respondent is given leave to be represented by a lawyer at a conference called under s 552A of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 or at the hearing of the Appellant's appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT TO AND LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION - APPLICATION BY RESPONDENT FOR LEAVE TO BE REPRESENTED BY A LAWYER - appeal against review decision of Respondent - Appellant employed as an accountant - Appellant made an application for workers' compensation claiming he suffered a psychiatric/psychological injury within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - the Respondent, pursuant to s 552B(b) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, seeks leave to be represented by a lawyer at a conference called under s 552A of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 or at the hearing of the Appellant's appeal - Appellant opposes such leave being granted - whether leave should be granted to the Respondent - matters which are relevant to granting of such leave - leave granted
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 530 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 552A and s 552B
CASES:	Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031; (2015) 252 IR 461 Elias v Commissioner of Taxation [2002] FCA 845; (2002) 123 FCR 499 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24 NSW Commissioner of Police v Cottle [2022] HCA 7; (2022) 399 ALR 449 Sean Investments Pty Ltd v MacKeller [1981] FCA 174; (1981) 38 ALR 363 State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q‑Comp and Beverley Coyne [2003] ICQ 9; (2003) 172 QGIG 1447

Reasons for Decision
Introduction

Mr Ricky Peck was employed as an accountant. On 11 March 2021, Mr Peck made an application for workers' compensation pursuant to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ('the Act') to WorkCover Queensland. The injury for which Mr Peck made his application for compensation was a psychiatric/psychological injury. WorkCover subsequently made a decision to reject Mr Peck's application. As was his right, Mr Peck sought a review of that decision with the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The Regulator confirmed the WorkCover decision ('the review decision').
By notice of appeal filed on 15 February 2022, Mr Peck, pursuant to ch 13, pt 3, div 1 of the Act, appealed to this Commission against the review decision.
By email sent to the Registrar on 15 February 2022, the Regulator sought leave, pursuant to s 552B of the Act, to be represented by a lawyer at a conference called under s 552A of the Act or at the hearing of…

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 Peck v Workers' Compensation Regulator 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: [2022] QIRC 189
Decision Date: 31 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal by the Appellant against a review decision of the Respondent. The Appellant, who was employed as an accountant, had applied for workers' compensation, claiming he suffered a psychiatric or psychological injury within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The Respondent sought leave to be represented by a lawyer at a conference or at the hearing of the Appellant's appeal, as per section 552B(b) of the Act. The Appellant opposed the Respondent being granted such leave.

The central legal issue was whether leave should be granted to the Respondent to be represented by a lawyer. The court considered various factors relevant to the granting of such leave, including the complexity of the case and the Respondent's ability to effectively present its case without legal representation. The court also weighed the Appellant's opposition to the Respondent being granted leave. Ultimately, the court determined that the Respondent's need for legal representation was justified given the complexity of the case and the importance of ensuring a fair process for both parties.

After careful consideration of the relevant factors, the court granted leave to the Respondent to be represented by a lawyer. This decision was based on the complexity of the issues at hand and the importance of ensuring a fair process for both parties. The court recognised that the Respondent's ability to effectively present its case would be enhanced by legal representation, and that this was in the best interests of both parties and the administration of justice. The Appellant's opposition to the Respondent being granted leave was not sufficient to outweigh these considerations.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 552B(b) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the Respondent is given leave to be represented by a lawyer at a conference called under s 552A of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 or at the hearing of the Appellant's appeal.

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.