Redding v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2019] QIRC 42

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Redding v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 042
PARTIES:	Redding, Karlene Ann (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2017/36
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	6 March 2019
HEARING DATE:	23 November 2017 (Kaufman DP) 8 June 2018 7 August 2018 29 August 2018 7 September 2018 (Appellant's submissions) 27 September 2018 (Regulator's submissions) 4 October 2018 (Appellant reply submissions)
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Swan DP Brisbane
ORDERS:	1. The Appeal is dismissed. 2. The Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs of, and incidental to the Appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR - dependency claim filed by Appellant pursuant to s 128D of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 - matters to be considered; "earnings" and whether Appellant was wholly or partly dependent on husband's "earnings"- determine that husband did not have "earnings" for the purposes of the Act and that Appellant was neither wholly or partly dependent upon those "earnings" - Appeal dismissed.
LEGISLATION:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 3, s 27, s 106, s 128A, s 128B, s 128C, 128D, s 200. Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulations 2014 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1954 (NSW) Workers' Compensation Act 1927 (TAS) Workplace Health and Safety and Other Legislation amendment Bill 2008 Coal and Oil Shale Min Workers' (Superannuation Act) 1941 (NSW) Transport Accident Act 1986 Accident Compensation Act 1985 (VIC)
CASES:	Cage Developments Pty Ltd (t/a Monaro Mix Specified Concrete v Schubert (1983) 151 CLR 584. Ebejer v Transport Accident Commission (2009) VCAT 1128. Fisher v Hebburn (1960) 105 CLR 188. Fletcher v Q-COMP [2010] QIRC 62. Gers v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1985) 119 QGIG 104. Kauri Timber Co (Tas) Pty Ltd v Reeman (1973) 128 CLR 177. Rogers v State Mines Control Authority (1964) 64 S.R. (NSW) 486. Serdzeff v Victorian WorkCover Authority (2005) 14 VR 43. Stevens v Frankston Football Cub V.F.A [1972] VR 595. Toll North Pty Ltd v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) & Lamb [2014] QIRC 065. Toll North Pty Ltd v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) & Lamb [2015] ICQ 004. WorkCover Queensland v Cook (2003) 173 QGIG 1416.
APPEARANCES:	Mr R.J. Armstrong of Counsel instructed by Slater and Gordon Lawyers for the Appellant. Mr S.P. Gray of Counsel directly instructed by Ms J. Webb of the Workers' Compensation Regulator. Reasons for Decision

Background to the Appeal

Mr Paul Redding lodged an application for compensation with the Gold Coast City Council Self-Insurer, City Cover (the Self-Insurer) on 3 May 2016 in respect of an injury described as mesothelioma which is said to have arisen out of his employment in various roles with the Gold Coast City Council (GCCC) from about early 1989 until about February 1995. Mr Redding was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in April 2016.

Mr Redding claimed that he had been unaware that he had suffered from…

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 Redding v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Redding v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 42
Case: [2019] QIRC 42
Decision Date: 6 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Redding v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal against a decision made by the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The Appellant, in this case, had filed a dependency claim pursuant to section 128D of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The core of the dispute centred on whether the Appellant was wholly or partly dependent on her husband's earnings. The Regulator had concluded that the husband did not have any earnings for the purposes of the Act and, consequently, that the Appellant was neither wholly nor partly dependent on those earnings.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Regulator correctly interpreted the term "earnings" and whether the Appellant was wholly or partly dependent on those earnings. The Court needed to consider the definition of "earnings" under the Act and determine if the Regulator's decision was legally sound and supported by the evidence. The Appellant argued that the Regulator had misinterpreted the Act and misapplied the evidence, leading to an incorrect conclusion about her dependency status.

In reviewing the matter, the Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law. It determined that the Regulator's interpretation of "earnings" was consistent with the statutory language and judicial precedent. The Court found no error in the Regulator's reasoning or in the application of the law to the facts of the case. As such, the Court upheld the Regulator's decision that the husband did not have "earnings" within the meaning of the Act and that the Appellant was not dependent on those earnings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant was ordered to pay the Regulator's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appeal is dismissed.

2. The Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs of, and incidental to the Appeal.

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.