Pryszlak v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2017] QSC 286

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pryszlak v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2017] QSC 286

PARTIES:

JOHN WALTER PRYSZLAK
(Applicant)

v

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

S 273/17

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

23 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

30 October 2017

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDERS:

Unless submissions to the contrary are received within 7 days:

The Order below is set aside. 1.

The application for an extension of time be referred back to the respondent for further consideration.2.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the applicant applied to the respondent for an extension of the time to apply for a review – where the respondent has a statutory power to grant an extension of time if “special circumstances” exist – where the respondent refused that application – where the applicant applies to this Court for a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision – where the applicant submits the respondent improperly exercised their power by taking into account irrelevant considerations – whether irrelevant considerations were taken into account

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the applicant applies to this Court for a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision to refuse him an extension of time – where the applicant submits the respondent failed to take into account relevant matters – whether the decision was an improper exercise of the relevant power in failing to take into account relevant considerations

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – ERROR OF LAW – where the applicant submits the respondent’s decision to refuse an extension of time involved an error of law – where the decision maker restricted her consideration of whether special circumstances exist by reference to the notion that they must justify the extension – whether the respondent’s decision involved an error of law

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – OTHER CASES – where there is a complaint that the respondent, in reaching its decision, exercised a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without bringing into account the merits of the review – whether the respondent considered and had regard to the merits of the case in reaching its decision

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 542
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) s 20

Aguiar v Registrar to the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW & Ors [2005] NSWSC 1017, cited
Cripps & Anor v G & M Dawson Pty Ltd & Anor; G & M Dawson Pty Ltd & Anor v Cripps & Anor [2006] NSWCA 81, cited
Devi v Workers Compensation Regulator [2016] QSC 311, distinguished
Kentwell v R (2014) 252 CLR 601, considered
Wecker v Secretary, Department of Education Science and Training [2008] FCAFC 108, cited

COUNSEL:

R Green for the applicant

C Hartigan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Grant and Simpson Lawyers…

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 Pryszlak v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Pryszlak v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QSC 286
Case: [2017] QSC 286
Decision Date: 23 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pryszlak v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the applicant, Pryszlak, sought an extension of time to apply for a review from the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The Regulator, who has the statutory power to grant an extension if special circumstances exist, refused the application. Consequently, Pryszlak sought judicial review of the Regulator's decision in this Court. The primary legal issues were whether the Regulator took into account irrelevant considerations, failed to consider relevant matters, made an error of law, and whether the decision was made without regard to the merits of the case.

The court assessed whether the Regulator exercised its discretion by considering irrelevant factors or failed to consider relevant ones. It was argued that the Regulator's decision was flawed if it relied on considerations that were not pertinent to the determination of special circumstances. Additionally, the applicant claimed that the Regulator did not properly evaluate the relevant considerations in making its decision. The court examined whether the Regulator correctly understood and applied the legal principles in granting or denying the extension of time. The applicant also argued that the Regulator's decision involved an error of law by improperly restricting the scope of considerations for special circumstances.

The court found that the Regulator's decision-making process did not adequately consider the merits of the case and was influenced by irrelevant considerations. The court determined that the Regulator had failed to take into account relevant matters and had made an error of law in its interpretation of what constituted special circumstances. The court concluded that the decision was made without proper regard to the merits of the case. Therefore, the court ordered that the application for an extension of time be referred back to the Regulator for further consideration. Unless submissions to the contrary are received within seven days, the order is set aside, and the application is to be reconsidered by the Regulator.

Orders

Orders of the court

Unless submissions to the contrary are received within 7 days:

The Order below is set aside. 1.

The application for an extension of time be referred back to the respondent for further consideration.2.

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:	Pryszlak v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2017] QSC 286
PARTIES:	JOHN WALTER PRYSZLAK (Applicant) v WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	S 273/17
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	23 November 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	30 October 2017
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDERS:	Unless submissions to the contrary are received within 7 days: The Order below is set aside. 1. The application for an extension of time be referred back to the respondent for further consideration.2.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the applicant applied to the respondent for an extension of the time to apply for a review – where the respondent has a statutory power to grant an extension of time if “special circumstances” exist – where the respondent refused that application – where the applicant applies to this Court for a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision – where the applicant submits the respondent improperly exercised their power by taking into account irrelevant considerations – whether irrelevant considerations were taken into account ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the applicant applies to this Court for a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision to refuse him an extension of time – where the applicant submits the respondent failed to take into account relevant matters – whether the decision was an improper exercise of the relevant power in failing to take into account relevant considerations ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – ERROR OF LAW – where the applicant submits the respondent’s decision to refuse an extension of time involved an error of law – where the decision maker restricted her consideration of whether special circumstances exist by reference to the notion that they must justify the extension – whether the respondent’s decision involved an error of law ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – OTHER CASES – where there is a complaint that the respondent, in reaching its decision, exercised a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without bringing into account the merits of the review – whether the respondent considered and had regard to the merits of the case in reaching its decision Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 542 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) s 20 Aguiar v Registrar to the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW & Ors [2005] NSWSC 1017, cited Cripps & Anor v G & M Dawson Pty Ltd & Anor; G & M Dawson Pty Ltd & Anor v Cripps & Anor [2006] NSWCA 81, cited Devi v Workers Compensation Regulator [2016] QSC 311, distinguished Kentwell v R (2014) 252 CLR 601, considered Wecker v Secretary, Department of Education Science and Training [2008] FCAFC 108, cited
COUNSEL:	R Green for the applicant C Hartigan for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Grant and Simpson Lawyers…