Ratcliffe v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2015] QIRC 76

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Ratcliffe v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 076
PARTIES:	Ratcliffe, Peter (Appellant) v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2014/213
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)
DELIVERED ON:	29 April 2015
HEARING DATE:	9 October 2014 13 April 2015 - Appellant and Respondent - Supplementary Submissions
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner Fisher
ORDERS:	1. The parties are directed to confer. 2. The parties are directed to advise the Industrial Registrar within 28 days of the date of release of this decision of the outcome of their discussions. 3. Failing agreement, the appeal will be relisted.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - application for compensation - whether application lodged within the statutorily prescribed time - when appellant assessed by a doctor - whether the application was lodged within six months after that assessment - whether any delay is attributable to mistake or reasonable cause - whether the time should be waived on the grounds of mistake or reasonable cause - parties are directed to confer.
CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 131(1), (5), s 132(2), s 141(1) Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 38 WorkCover Queensland v Downey (2001) 168 QGIG 381 Blackwood v Toward [2015] ICQ 8
APPEARANCES:	Ms G. Lawson, Counsel instructed by Firths Compensation Lawyers for the Appellant. Mr S. McLeod, Counsel directly instructed by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) for the Respondent.

Decision

Peter Ratcliffe lodged an application for compensation with WorkCover Queensland on 6 May 2013 for injuries to both hips and his back. Mr Ratcliffe claimed to have sustained these injuries on 25 November 2010 while driving dump trucks at the Curragh Coal Mine located at Blackwater. At that time Mr Ratcliffe was employed by Golding Contractors Pty Ltd as a rear dump truck operator.
Under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, to have a valid and enforceable claim Mr Ratcliffe was required to lodge the application for compensation within six months after the entitlement to compensation arose. Mr Ratcliffe contends that his entitlement arose once he was assessed by Dr James Bodel, Orthopaedic Surgeon and advised by his report of 2 November 2012 of the connection between his injury and employment with Golding Contractors. As such, his application for compensation was lodged within the statutorily prescribed time.
In the event the Commission does not accept the application is valid and enforceable then Mr Ratcliffe seeks that the time limit be waived for the reasons of mistake or a reasonable cause. Mr Ratcliffe claims he was mistaken or otherwise he had a reasonable cause for failing to lodge the application within the prescribed time. This is because he did not know that he could have made a claim or made it sooner until he received the report from Dr Bodel dated 2 November 2012.

The issues that arise for determination in the appeal are:

· when did Mr Ratcliffe's entitlement to compensation arise;
· whether his application for…

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 Ratcliffe v Simon Blackwood (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: [2015] QIRC 76
Decision Date: 29 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ratcliffe v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) involved an appeal against a decision concerning an application for workers' compensation. The applicant sought compensation for injuries sustained in the course of employment, but the Workers' Compensation Regulator had rejected the application on the basis that it was not lodged within the statutory time limit. The applicant argued that the delay was due to a mistake or reasonable cause, warranting a waiver of the time limit. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the applicant's application for compensation was lodged within the six-month period stipulated by statute after being assessed by a doctor. A secondary issue was whether any delay in lodging the application was attributable to a mistake or reasonable cause, which would justify a waiver of the time limit. The tribunal had to determine the applicability of the statutory provisions and whether the circumstances of the case warranted an exception to the usual time constraints.

In reaching its decision, the tribunal noted that the applicant had been assessed by a doctor, and the application for compensation was lodged six months and one day later. The tribunal acknowledged the statutory requirement for the application to be made within six months of the assessment. However, the tribunal also considered the applicant's argument that the delay was due to a mistake or reasonable cause. The tribunal found that there was a genuine dispute about the facts leading to the delay, and the matter required further investigation. Consequently, the tribunal directed the parties to confer and attempt to resolve the dispute. If the parties could not reach an agreement, the matter would be relisted for further hearing.

The tribunal made two orders. First, the parties were directed to confer and attempt to reach an agreement on the matter. Second, if the parties could not agree, they were required to advise the Industrial Registrar within 28 days of the release of the decision, and the appeal would be relisted for further hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The parties are directed to confer.

2. The parties are directed to advise the Industrial Registrar within 28 days of the date of release of this decision of the outcome of their discussions.

3. Failing agreement, the appeal will be relisted.

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.