Rea v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2020] QIRC 114

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Rea v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 114
PARTIES:	Rea, Mark Appellant v Workers' Compensation Regulator Respondent
CASE NO:	WC/2019/208
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	7 August 2020
HEARING DATES:	Conferenced on 24 March 2020 and 17 July 2020
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	McLennan IC Brisbane
ORDERS:	1. That the appeal is dismissed. 2. That each party bear their own costs in the proceeding.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL – where Appellant has been directed to provide information – where Appellant has failed to comply with directions to provide statement of facts and contentions – application of rule 45 – appeal dismissed.
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 41, r 45 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32, s 125, s 553 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) reg 132 Cady v Capital SMART Repairs Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] QIRC 144 Cooper v. Hopgood & Ganim [1998] QCA 114 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd [1990] 98 ALR 200 Quaedvlieg and Ors v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] QIC 73 Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor [2001] QCA 176 Seymour v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 061 Treanor v State of Queensland [2019] QIRC 146 Witten v. Lombard Australia Ltd (1968) 88 W.N. (Pt. 1) N.S.W. 405 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Varga [2019] QIRC 028 Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Bero [2019] QIRC 36
APPEARANCES:	Mr M. Rea on his own behalf. Ms C-L. Godfrey of the Workers’ Compensation Regulator.

Reasons for Decision

Mr Mark Rea (the Appellant) filed a Form 9 - WCR notice of appeal (the Appeal Notice) against a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Regulator (the Respondent) on 28 November 2019. The appeal relates to a decision of the regulator to terminate Mr Rea’s entitlement to compensation from 20 June 2019.
According to the Appeal Notice, Mr Rea’s ground of appeal is:
Communication breakdown has occurred between all parties involved.
On 24 March 2020 I conducted a conciliation conference between the parties. At that conference, Mr Rea was informed a Further Directions Order would be forthcoming, requiring him to file materials including a Statement of Facts and Contentions. I then took Mr Rea through the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Guide in considerable detail. He was referred to the relevant page numbers in that guide, pertinent forms on the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission website (‘the website’), and his questions about the process were answered. Further, Mr Rea was advised that the transcript of the conference would be made available to him, and that a second conference would be convened.
I then had my Associate email Mr Rea immediately after the conference, to provide Mr Rea with:
·     Two different links to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Guide;
·     Links to relevant forms on the website; and
·     A notation that if Mr Rea required any assistance in complying with the Directions, he…

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 Rea v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Rea v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 114
Case: [2020] QIRC 114
Decision Date: 7 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Workers' Compensation Regulator brought an appeal against the Appellant, Rea, in the Court of Appeal. The appeal arose from an earlier decision where the Appellant had been ordered to provide information under the Workers Compensation Act. The Appellant failed to comply with the directions to provide a statement of facts and contentions. The Regulator applied to the court to enforce the earlier order and to apply rule 45 of the relevant rules to prevent the appeal from proceeding. The court was required to decide whether the appeal should be dismissed under rule 45 and whether the Regulator's application to enforce the earlier order should be granted.

The court considered the provisions of rule 45 and the circumstances of the case. The Appellant had failed to comply with the directions to provide a statement of facts and contentions, which was a fundamental requirement for the appeal to proceed. The court held that the Appellant's failure to comply with the directions demonstrated a disregard for the court's processes and the Regulator's rights. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed under rule 45 and that the Regulator's application to enforce the earlier order should be granted. The court also considered the costs of the proceeding and ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs. The Regulator's application to enforce the earlier order was granted, and the Appellant was required to provide a statement of facts and contentions. The decision highlights the importance of complying with court directions and the consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the appeal is dismissed.

2. That each party bear their own costs in the proceeding.

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.