Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2023] QIRC 310

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 310
PARTIES:	Praljak, Adrian (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NOS:	WC/2022/165 WC/2022/166 WC/2022/167
PROCEEDING:	Applications in existing proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	30 October 2023
HEARING DATE:	23 October 2023
MEMBER: PLACE OF HEARING:	Merrell DP Brisbane
ORDER:	The orders contained in paragraph [57] of these reasons for decision.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – three appeals by Appellant against three review decisions of the Respondent – review decisions determined that Appellant did not have a compensable injury within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 in respect of three different employers of the Appellant – Directions Orders issued by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission that the Appellant files and serves Notices of Appeal that put the Respondent on notice of the cases it has to meet – Appellant failed on three occasions to file and serve notices of appeal that put the Respondent on notice of the cases it has to meet – applications by the Respondent, pursuant to r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, to dismiss the three proceedings on the grounds that the Appellant has failed to comply with Directions Orders made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission – no confidence that the Appellant will file and serve notices of appeal that will put the Respondent on notice of the cases it has to meet – all three proceedings dismissed pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 545 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 5, r 6, r 41 and r 45 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 552A and s 558
CASES:	Church v (Simon Blackwood) Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] ICQ 031; (2015) 252 IR 461 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Paul Scott v State of Queensland & Ors [2019] QIRC 115
APPEARANCES:	The Appellant by telephone. Mr P. O'Neill of Counsel instructed by Ms C. Shedden of the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision
Introduction

Mr Adrian Praljak is the appellant in three proceedings against three different review decisions of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Regulator'). The appeals against the three review decisions are made by Mr Praljak under ch 13, pt 3, div 1 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ('the Act'). Mr Praljak has filed a Notice of Appeal in respect of each review decision.
By applications in existing proceedings, filed on 28 September 2023, in respect of each of Mr Praljak's appeals, the Regulator has applied for orders, pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 ('the Rules') that Mr Praljak's three appeals be dismissed arising from the repeated failures by Mr Praljak to comply with Directions Orders made by the Commission in respect of filing the Notices of Appeal.
The question before me is whether I should exercise my discretion and dismiss Mr Praljak's three proceedings…

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 Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 310
Case: [2023] QIRC 310
Decision Date: 30 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Praljak appealed three review decisions of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which had determined that he did not have a compensable injury under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 for injuries sustained while employed by Bond University, James McConville and Associates, and Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission issued Directions Orders for Mr Praljak to file and serve Notices of Appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission, which put the Regulator on notice of the cases it had to meet. Mr Praljak failed to comply with these Directions Orders on three occasions, prompting the Regulator to apply to dismiss the proceedings under rule 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011. The court had to decide whether the Regulator's applications to dismiss the proceedings should be granted.

The court held that the Regulator's applications should be granted and dismissed the proceedings. The court found that Mr Praljak had failed to comply with the Directions Orders on three occasions and found there was no confidence that he would comply with any further Directions Orders. The court also found that the proceedings had been pending for a significant period of time, and Mr Praljak had shown a lack of interest in pursuing the proceedings. The court held that dismissal of the proceedings was appropriate in the circumstances.

The court dismissed Mr Praljak's three proceedings and ordered that they be removed from the court's list. The court also ordered that Mr Praljak pay the Regulator's costs of the applications to dismiss the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders contained in paragraph [57] of these reasons for decision.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons that follow, I will, pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Rules, dismiss Mr Praljak's three proceedings.BackgroundMatter No. WC/2022/165 Matter No. WC/2022/165 concerns a short period of time when Mr Praljak was employed by Bond University. Mr Praljak made a workers' compensation claim, alleging that, over that time, he suffered an injury in that he was '… permanently sensory disabled with acrophobia'. Following an earlier review decision of the Regulator, that claim was rejected by WorkCover Queensland on the basis that Mr Praljak's employment with Bond University was not a significant contributing factor to that injury. Mr Praljak then sought a review of that decision by the Regulator. By review decision dated 7 October 2022, the Regulator confirmed the earlier decision of WorkCover principally on the basis that, having regard to the medical evidence before it, Mr Praljak's employment with Bond University was not a significant contributing factor to his injury. Mr Praljak appealed against that review decision by filing a Notice of Appeal on 10 October 2022 ('the Bond University appeal'). Matter No. WC/2022/166 Matter No. WC/2022/166 concerns three short periods of time when Mr Praljak was employed by James McConville and Associates, a law firm ('McConville'). Mr Praljak made a workers' compensation claim, alleging that, over those times, he suffered an injury namely, permanent '… sensory disabled Acrophobia'. Again, following an earlier review decision of the Regulator, that claim was rejected by WorkCover on the basis that Mr Praljak's employment with McConville was not a significant contributing factor to that injury. Again, Mr Praljak sought a review of that decision by the Regulator. Again, by review decision dated 7 October 2022, the Regulator confirmed the earlier decision of WorkCover principally on the basis that, having regard to the medical evidence before it, Mr Praljak's employment with McConville was not a significant contributing factor to his injury. Mr Praljak appealed against that review decision by filing a Notice of Appeal on 10 October 2022 ('the McConville appeal').Matter No. WC/2022/167 Matter No. WC/2022/167 concerns a short period of time when Mr Praljak was employed by Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd ('Wyndham'). Mr Praljak made a workers' compensation claim, alleging that, over that time, he suffered an injury, namely, permanent '… sensory disabled Acrophobia'. Once again, following an earlier review decision of the Regulator, that claim was rejected by WorkCover on the basis that Mr Praljak's employment with Wyndham was not a significant contributing factor to that injury. Once again, Mr Praljak sought a review of that decision by the Regulator. Once again, by review decision dated 7 October 2022, the Regulator confirmed the earlier decision of WorkCover principally on the basis that, having regard to the medical evidence before it, Mr Praljak's employment with Wyndham was not a significant contributing factor to his injury.

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.