Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Case [2023] ICQ 30

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Praljak v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 30

PARTIES:

ADRIAN PRALJAK

(appellant)

v
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

C/2023/40
C/2023/41

C/2023/42

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

1 December 2023

HEARING DATE:

30 November 2023

MEMBER:

Davis J, President

ORDER:

In each of C/2023/40, C/2023/41 and C/2023/42; Application to Appeal struck out.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – where the applicant made applications for workers’ compensation – where WorkCover refused the applications – where the appellant sought review by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator of WorkCover’s refusal of his claims – where the Regulator confirmed the decision of WorkCover – where the appellant appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) – where the QIRC struck out each of the appeals – where the appellant appealed to the Industrial Court of Queensland – where the Regulator applied to strike out the notices of appeal to the Court – where the notices of appeal were insensible – whether the appeals ought to be struck out

Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 548, s 557, s 560A, s 565
Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 45, r 139, r 226
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

CASES:

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170; [1981] HCA 39, cited
Batistatos v Road and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27, followed
Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194; [2000] HCA 47, cited
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1, followed
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, followed
Paul Scott v State of Queensland & Ors [2019] QIRC 115, cited
Praljak v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 310, related
Turay v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 013, cited
Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Glass (2020) 4 QR 693; [2020] QCA 133, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared by telephone

Mr PB O’Neill instructed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator

  1. The Workers’ Compensation Regulator applies to strike out three Applications to Appeal filed by Adrian Praljak against a decision of Deputy President Merrell[1] which struck out three appeals to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) from decisions of the Regulator.

    Background

  2. Mr Praljak was employed by Bond University.  He made claim for workers’ compensation pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCR Act) alleging psychiatric or psychological injury (the Bond claim). WorkCover, the statutory insurer established under the WCR Act disallowed the claim. Mr Praljak sought review of that decision by the Regulator. The Regulator confirmed the decision of WorkCover.

  3. Mr Praljak filed an Application to Appeal[2] against the decision of WorkCover.  That became QIRC…

Continue reading Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 30
Case
[2023] ICQ 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Workers' Compensation Regulator has applied to the Industrial Court of Queensland to strike out three appeals filed by Adrian Praljak, who was an employee of Bond University, against the Regulator's decision to dismiss his claims for workers' compensation. The appeals were previously dismissed by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC), which also rejected the notices of appeal filed by Mr. Praljak. The Regulator argued that the notices of appeal were insensible and did not provide valid grounds for appeal. The court had to decide whether the appeals should be dismissed due to the lack of valid grounds.

The primary legal issue was whether the appeals should be dismissed because the notices of appeal were insensible and did not provide valid grounds. The court considered the grounds of appeal and whether they were properly identified and relevant to the decision of the QIRC. The court had to assess whether the decisions of the QIRC were subject to appellate review and if the appeals were an abuse of process. The court had to decide whether the appeals were frivolous and vexatious.

The court found that the notices of appeal were indeed insensible and did not provide valid grounds for appeal. The court noted that the appeals were from the QIRC's decision to strike out the notices of appeal and not from the Regulator's decision to dismiss the claims. The court also found that the grounds of appeal were irrelevant to the QIRC's decision and did not provide a basis for appellate review. The court concluded that the appeals were an abuse of process and should be dismissed. The court also found that the appeals were frivolous and vexatious.

The court ordered that the applications to appeal be struck out in each of the cases C/2023/40, C/2023/41, and C/2023/42. The court found that the appeals were not valid and did not provide a basis for appellate review. The court also found that the appeals were an abuse of process and should be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

In each of C/2023/40, C/2023/41 and C/2023/42; Application to Appeal struck out.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Workers’ Compensation Regulator applies to strike out three Applications to Appeal filed by Adrian Praljak against a decision of Deputy President Merrell[1] which struck out three appeals to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) from decisions of the Regulator.[1]Praljak v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 310.Background Mr Praljak was employed by Bond University. He made claim for workers’ compensation pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCR Act) alleging psychiatric or psychological injury (the Bond claim). WorkCover, the statutory insurer established under the WCR Act disallowed the claim. Mr Praljak sought review of that decision by the Regulator. The Regulator confirmed the decision of WorkCover. Mr Praljak filed an Application to Appeal[2] against the decision of WorkCover. That became QIRC file WC/2022/165. That notice of appeal was subsequently amended.[2]Which I will call a “notice of appeal”. As amended, the notice of appeal to the QIRC identified the decision being appealed against as:“1)Reasons for Decision Queensland Government Office of Industrial Relations; Dated; 07/10/2022; ‘application for review received by the Worker’s Compensation Regulator on 6 August 2022 in relation to the Decision by Work Cover Queensland (Work Cover) ro rejectyour application for compensation (the application).’2)The written decision from; Dated; 04/08/2022 Work Cover Queensland Claim S18QC8206923)All other relevant Decisions connected with this new QIRC Legal Case”And the grounds of appeal as:“1)Unpaid Wages & Super Contributions: Due to Bond University Limited and their Associates at the time not making fair, reasonable adjustments and support I lost several years of career and income. I seek $55,750,000.00 ($55,750 Million AUD) or The Maximum Financial Compensation amount from Bond University Limited for general and aggravated damages and $55,750,000.00 AUD or the Maximum Financial Compensation amount for loss of Income and Economic Circumstances, Punitive Damages and all other available Legal Grounds, Damages, Remedies, Persuant to the strong QIRC Legal Case Precedent of; Golding v Sippel &The Laundry Chute Pty Ltd 2021.2)Request leave to appeal on a question of facts; Both Work-Cover Queensland, OIR and their Investigators had incorrect facts, incomplete facts, and recent new legal evidence has come to light which supports me, Mr. Adrian Praljak the victim and all of my stated sound allegations against Bond University Limited and their past, current certain Associates.3)Error of Law; Both Work-Cover Queensland, OIR and their Investigators had incorrect Laws. That an Entity Bond University can commit Rape, Sexual Abuse and other Indictable and Summary crimes against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak and against many other victims over many decades and financial fraud, bullying, harassment. New Legal Evidence has also come to light, and I have recently provided all of this Legal Evidence to the Disability Royal Commission and Other Australian Commonwealth and State Agencies and Ministers for their immediate sound investigations and prosecutions under their Powers, Scopes, Jurisdictions, Authority, Portfolios.4)Strong Evidence in the Public Best Interest for QIRC to run my Legal Cases; My QIRC Case is in the Australian and International Public Interests because the criminal offenders at Bond University and their past and current certain Associates need to be held accountable under Australian and International Laws for their decades of Indictable and Summary Crimes, Other types of offences and for the permanent Medical Damage they caused to me during my short term Employment at the Entity Bond University Limited.5)In the Interest of Justice;6)The Verdict is unreasonable;7)The Verdict cannot be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence - unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict8)There is Mixed Laws and Facts;9)There is a Breach of Duty of Care;10)There is Unlawful Negligence11)Sexual Abuse;12)Criminal Defamation, Harasment, Unlawful Stalking, Framing and Orchestrating false civil and criminal offences against Me the Victim; Mr. Adrian Praljak13)Serious Indictable Historic Crimes and Other Crimes and Offences committed against me, mr. Adrian Praljak and many other victims over many decades.”And the facts relied upon:“1)All parties have Evidence now that I was Employed at Bond University Limited2)New Legal Evidence and Facts have recently come to light about all of the Indictable and Summary crimes and other offences which have been committed at Bond University and by their past, current certain Employees against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak and against many Other Victims over many Decades.3)New Medical Evidence has been obtained that I now suffer from; Acrophobia, Psychosocial Disability, Severe Anxiety, Claustrophobia, other Psychological damages, harm; due to my previous Employment and subsequent Other events where Bond University and their certain past, current Associates, Internally and externally have committed serious Indictable and Summary crimes, Other types of crimes, Offences against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak and many other victims over many decades.4)I would like to give my Evidence at QIRC Orally.5)I request leave to give my Evidence, Further Facts Orally as both; Work Cover Queensland and OIR Errored in Facts in making their Decisions for my Legal Case previously.6)This is in The Interest of Justice7)There has been Miscarriages of Justices8)Work Cover Queensland failed to run, make sound, thorough investigations and they may have been, unlawfully compromised at the time of their Investigations into Bond University Limited, There may have also been, Serious Conflict of Interests, Duress, Unlawful Influence, Other Unlawful Conduct by external parties against Work-Cover Queensland.9)Recent New Legal Evidence, facts has come out by the recent Independent Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service (QPS) and The Queensland Crimes Corruption Commission (CCC) about their Unlawful activities, failing to take people, victims such as myself, official written police statements and also their failure to subsequently investigate our complaints, written police statements, get justice and accountability under the law against the offenders, predators, criminal offenders.”

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

In any event, the decision of the QIRC was one made in exercise of discretion so the jurisdiction for appellate intervention is limited by the principles in House v The King.[13] The decisions were of a nature of case management orders with which appellate courts are loath to interfere except where substantial injustice is shown.[14] However, the decision of the Deputy President effectively ended the appeals and the normal reluctance to interfere on appeal may not be present.[13](1936) 55 CLR 499.[14]Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 at 177 and as to the fact that rights were finally determined, see pages 177, 178 and 180.Consideration The notices of appeal to this Court are all insensible. As to the notice of appeal in the Bond claim,[15] there are no grounds of appeal[16] specified at all. Mr Praljak does identify the decisions which he seeks on appeal. The first is clear enough. It seeks the quashing of the decision at first instance. The second order sought is not an order at all. Mr Praljak asserts that the Deputy President defamed him by mistakenly describing his medical condition as “agoraphobia” instead of “acrophobia”. It is not explained how that error could form a ground of appeal which might succeed in quashing the decision below. It is not a proper ground of appeal that the Deputy President said things in the judgment which were not complimentary of Mr Praljak.[15]File C/2023/40.[16]See paragraph [16] of these reasons. The third decision sought on appeal is an order compelling WorkCover and the Office of Industrial Relations “to run fresh investigations” into his cases with WorkCover. WorkCover was not a party to the proceedings in the QIRC. The Office of Industrial Relations was not a party to the proceedings before the QIRC. Neither are parties to the appeal. Even if they were, I can identify no source of jurisdiction in this Court to make the order sought. The notice of appeal relevant to each of the McConvill claim[17] and the Wyndham claim[18] are effectively the same. In both appeals, there are both details of the decision sought and articulated grounds of appeal.[19][17]C/2023/41.[18]C/2023/42.[19]See paragraphs [17] and [18] of these reasons. The details of the decision sought in each of the McConvill and Wyndham claims are the same as in the Bond claim and therefore suffer the same criticism. The first ground of appeal in each of the McConvill and Wyndham claims asserts that Deputy President Merrell, WorkCover and OIR erred in finding “having regard to the medical evidence before it, Mr Praljak’s employment with McConvill [and in the other appeal, Wyndham] was not a significant contributing factor to his injury”. The appeal is from the decision of the Deputy President striking-out the notices of appeal from the Regulator’s decision to the QIRC. This is not an appeal from any decision of either WorkCover or OIR. What is sought to be achieved by the appeal to this Court is the correction of any error made by the Deputy President. It is only his decision which is relevant to this appeal.