Reimers v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2024] QIRC 83

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Reimers v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 083
PARTIES:	Reimers, Linda (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2020/169
PROCEEDING:	Workers' Compensation Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	16 April 2024
MEMBER:	McLennan IC
HEARD AT:	On the papers
ORDERS:	That the appeal is dismissed pursuant to *r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.*
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – where appellant failed to comply with directions orders – consideration of r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 – where appeal is dismissed
LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS:	Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 6, r 45 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32
CASES:	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 Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor [2001] QCA 176 Seymour v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 061 Smith v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 070 Treanor v State of Queensland [2019] QIRC 146 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Bero [2019] QIRC 36 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Varga [2019] QIRC 028

Reasons for Decision

Background

On 18 December 2020, Ms Linda Reimers (the Appellant) filed an appeal against a decision of the Workers Compensation Regulator (the Respondent) dated 6 October 2020, where the Respondent confirmed the decision of WorkCover to reject the Appellant's application for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCR Act).
On 21 December 2020, the Industrial Registrar issued a Directions Order requiring the parties to file and serve material. Various extensions were granted to the parties throughout compliance with the Directions Order.[1]
[1] Directions Order (2) dated 3 March 2021; Directions Order (3) dated 7 April 2021; Directions Order (4) dated 18 June 2021.
At the time, the Appellant was represented by Kare Lawyers.
At the conclusion of the Directions Orders, the Respondent wrote to the Appellant's solicitors regarding the future conduct of the appeal and requested that the Appellant consider filing an Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions.[2] Kare Lawyers informed the Respondent that they no longer acted for the Appellant.[3]
[2] Affidavit of Ms R. Jamieson filed on 1 September 2023, [6].
[3] Ibid [6].
On 21 July 2021, the Industrial Registry wrote to the parties to confirm if the matter was ready to proceed to a hearing. The Respondent wrote back advising they were of the view that the matter was not ready to proceed and relayed the information they received from Kare Lawyers, that the Appellant was in the process of altering her representation.[4]
[4] Email from Ms R. Jamieson to the Industrial Registry, cc the Appellant and Kare Lawyers dated 26 July 2021.
The Appellant filed a Form 36 – Notice of change in lawyer or agent in the Industrial Registry appointing her husband, Mr Jason Reimers, to…

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 Reimers v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Reimers v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 83
Case: [2024] QIRC 83
Decision Date: 16 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reimers v Workers' Compensation Regulator involves the Appellant, Reimers, challenging a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The dispute concerns the Appellant's entitlement to workers' compensation, which was previously denied by the Regulator. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The central legal issue in this case was whether the Appellant's failure to comply with directions orders warranted the dismissal of the appeal under rule 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Appellant's non-compliance with the procedural requirement of filing written submissions in reply by the stipulated deadline justified the dismissal of the appeal. The Appellant had been given an opportunity to file any necessary submissions in reply by 4:00 pm on 5 September 2023 but failed to do so. This procedural non-compliance became a critical point in the court's consideration of the appeal.

In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules and directions in tribunal proceedings. The court noted that the Appellant had been explicitly offered an opportunity to file written submissions in reply but did not take advantage of this opportunity. The Tribunal held that such non-compliance with procedural requirements was significant enough to warrant the dismissal of the appeal under rule 45(3)(a) of the Tribunal Rules. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the Appellant's procedural lapse undermined the fairness and efficiency of the tribunal process.

The Tribunal's decision was clear and concise, leading to the final order that the appeal be dismissed pursuant to rule 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011. This outcome underscores the necessity for strict adherence to procedural rules in tribunal proceedings, particularly in matters concerning workers' compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the appeal is dismissed pursuant to

r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.

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

It is worth noting that the Appellant was offered an opportunity to file written submissions in reply to those of the Respondent, if needed, by 4.00 pm on 5 September 2023. The Appellant did not take the opportunity to file any submissions in reply. Conclusion Based on the reasons I have outlined above, these proceedings ought to be dismissed under r 45(3)(a) of the Tribunal Rules.Order I make the following order: That the appeal is dismissed pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.