Sandhu v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2020] QIRC 33

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Sandhu v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 033
PARTIES:	Rajdeep Singh Sandhu (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2019/82
PROCEEDING:	Commission acting on own motion.
DELIVERED ON:	28 February 2020
MEMBER:	Dwyer IC
ORDER:	*1. Pursuant to r 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Rules) 2011, I dismiss the proceedings in matter WC/2019/82.*
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL – Commission acting on own motion to dismiss proceeding – where the appellant has failed to communicate with the Commission – where the appellant has failed to comply with directions of the Commission – where the appellant has repeatedly failed to appear at mentions - whether discretion to dismiss proceeding is enlivened
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011, r 6, r 45 Workers' Compensations and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 552A Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1990) FCR 388 Quaedvlieg and Ors v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] QIC 73; 180 QGIG 1209 Paul Scott v State of Queensland & Ors [2019] QIRC 115 Quinlan v Rothwell& Anor [2001] QCA 176
APPEARANCES	No appearance for the Appellant. Ms C. Godfrey on behalf of the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

Background

Dr Sandhu filed a Form 9, Notice of Appeal with the Commission on 16 May 2019. He sought to appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('WCR') dated 1 May 2019 confirming an earlier rejection of his claim by WorkCover Qld.
On 17 May 2019 directions were issued from the Registry with respect to mutual exchange of lists of documents and documents between the parties. It appears from subsequent conduct of the matter that Dr Sandhu complied with these directions.
The matter was then listed for a conference pursuant to s 552A of the Workers' Compensations and Rehabilitation Act 2003. A conference took place on 8 August 2019.
Dr Sandhu attended the conference on 8 August 2019.

On 8 August 2019, following the conference, I issued directions requiring Dr Sandhu to file and serve his statement of facts and contentions ('SOFC') and list of stressors by 3 October 2019.
On 4 October 2019 Dr Sandhu emailed the Registry seeking an extension to 7 October 2019 for the filing of his SOFC and list of stressors. With consent of WCR I granted the extension.
Dr Sandhu filed and served his SOFC and list of stressors on 8 October 2019. Relevantly they were, in total, 77 pages in length.
On 29 October 2019, at 7:05am, Ms Godfrey on behalf of the WCR emailed Dr Sandhu and the Commission to seek an extension of time to file their SOFC. They sought an extension until 8 November 2019.
On 29 October 2019, at 7:49am, Dr Sandhu emailed a reply to Ms Godfrey and the Commission confirming his consent to the extension sought.
Later that day, at 9:18am Dr Sandhu sent a further email qualifying the extent to which he consented to extension. This is the last communication Dr Sandhu has…

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 Sandhu v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Sandhu v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 33
Case: [2020] QIRC 33
Decision Date: 28 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Workers' Compensation Regulator filed an appeal against the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission to dismiss their application for a review of a claim for workers' compensation. The appellant, Sandhu, had been unsuccessful in their original claim for compensation and sought a review of the decision. The matter was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the Commission had the discretion to dismiss the proceedings given the appellant's failure to communicate with the Commission, non-compliance with directions, and repeated failures to appear at mentions.

The court noted that the Commission had the inherent jurisdiction to manage its own processes and to dismiss proceedings where it was appropriate to do so. In this case, the court found that the appellant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process, as they had failed to engage with the Commission and had not taken the matter seriously. The court held that the Commission's decision to dismiss the proceeding was within its discretion, and that the appellant's conduct had justified the dismissal. The court further found that the appellant's failure to comply with the Commission's directions and to attend mentions had exacerbated the situation and had further demonstrated a lack of respect for the process.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Commission's decision to dismiss the proceeding. The court found that the Commission had acted within its jurisdiction and had exercised its discretion appropriately in dismissing the proceeding. The court noted that the appellant's conduct had been unacceptable and had warranted the dismissal of the proceeding. The court concluded that the Commission's decision was reasonable and that there were no grounds for the appellant's appeal to succeed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Rules) 2011, I dismiss the proceedings in matter WC/2019/82.

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.