INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Ribeiro v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2020] ICQ 017
PARTIES:
ISRAEL RIBEIRO
(appellant)
v
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR(respondent)
FILE NO:
C/2020/3
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
21 April 2020
HEARING DATE:
21 April 2020
MEMBER:
Martin J, President
ORDERS:
The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant made an application for workers’ compensation for an umbilical hernia injury said to have been sustained over a period of time as a result of his employment – where the application was rejected by his employer, a self-insurer, and, on review, by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator – where the appellant appealed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Regulator to the QIRC – where the issues before the Deputy President were (a) whether the appellant’s hernias arose out of or in the course of his employment, and, if so, whether his employment was a significant contributing fact to the injury; or (b) whether the appellant suffered an aggravation of his hernias which arose out of or in the course of his employment, and, if so, whether his employment was a significant contributing factor to the aggravation – where the Deputy President answered both questions in the negative – whether the appellant identified an error of law in the Deputy President’s reasons
INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent seeks its costs of the appeal – where the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 restricts the availability of a costs order to circumstances where the appeal is vexatious or without reasonable cause – whether the appeal was without reasonable cause
CASES:
Jegatheeswaran v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 194 ALR 263, cited
Waterford v The Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54, appliedAPPEARANCES:
C Donnan instructed by Jonathan C Whiting & Associates for the appellant
D Callaghan instructed directly by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator
Mr Israel Ribeiro commenced employment with JBS Australia Proprietary Limited in March 2008. JBS operated an abattoir at Dinmore at the relevant time. JBS is, under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, a self-insurer. Mr Ribeiro made an application for workers’ compensation for an umbilical hernia injury said to have been sustained over a period of time as a result of his employment as a slicer. It was rejected by JBS and, on review, by the Regulator.
When the matter came before the Commission, Mr Ribeiro submitted the following:
(a)that he suffered the injuries of an umbilical hernia and a para-umbilical hernia,
(b)that those two injuries arose out of or in the course of his employment, and that his employment was a significant contributing factor to those injuries,
(c)his employment aggravated his hernias and his employment was a significant contributing factor to that aggravation, and
(d)the causal connection between his employment and the development or aggravation of his hernias was…
Continue reading Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] ICQ 17
- Case
- [2020] ICQ 17
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Deputy President were whether the appellant's hernias arose out of or in the course of his employment, and if so, whether his employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury, or whether there was an aggravation of the hernias that arose out of or in the course of his employment, with employment again being a significant contributing factor. The Deputy President answered both questions in the negative, finding that the appellant had not met the requisite criteria for workers’ compensation. The appellant subsequently appealed to the Industrial Court, claiming that the Deputy President had erred in law.
The Industrial Court considered whether the appeal was vexatious or without reasonable cause, as per the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, which restrict the availability of a costs order. The Court found that the appeal did not have reasonable cause and therefore dismissed it. In addition, the Court ordered that the respondent’s costs of the appeal be paid by the appellant.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is dismissed.
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.