Scott v WorkCover Queensland - [2000] QSC 414

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Scott v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QSC 414
PARTIES: COLIN MICHAEL SCOTT
(applicant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(respondent)
FILE NO: S9077 of 2000
DIVISION: Trial Division
DELIVERED ON: 20 November 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 27 October 2000
JUDGE: White J

ORDER:

1.

A declaration that the form being exhibit 1 to the affidavit of Peter John Hooper filed 18 October 2000 which on its face purports to be a form approved by the chief executive officer of WorkCover Queensland is not an approved form for the purposes of s 280 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.
2. Declarations that the applicant

(a)

need not give notice as stipulated by s 280(1) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 whether within the period of limitation for bringing a proceeding for damages under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 or otherwise;

(b)

need not give WorkCover written notice under s 281 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 of any change in relation to the information given in a notice of claim;

(c)

need not organise and hold a conference of the parties of the kind referred to in s 293 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996;

(d)

need not make a written formal offer of settlement as required by s 294 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996; and

(e)

need not await the occurrence of the events or any of the events referred to in s 303 of the Act,
before starting a proceeding in a court for damages if there is no approved form as required by s 280 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.

CATCHWORDS: WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT TO AND LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION - whether form approved by the chief executive of WorkCover for a notice of claim for damages pursuant to s 280 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 conforms with the Act - effect of “approved form” not conforming.
STATUTES - INTERPRETATION - whether regulation requiring person with no legal knowledge to swear to matters involving legal knowledge or understanding is ultra vires.

Criminal Code, s 193, s 194
Oaths Act 1867 (Qld), s 6, s 14
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 36 s 285, s 293, s 294, s 303, s 305, s 532, Schedule 1

WorkCover Queensland Regulation 1997 (Qld),
s 74(1)(c)(iii), s 74(1)(b)(v), s 74(1)(b)(vi)
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421,
considered
Neuss v Roche Bros Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 130, unreported
judgments of 14 April 2000 and 13 June 2000, considered
State of New South Wales v Macquarie Bank Ltd (1992) 30
NSWLR 307, considered
COUNSEL: M Grant-Taylor SC and Dr G Cross for the applicant
D North SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Watling Roche for the applicant
Tutt & Quinlan for the respondent

WHITE J: The applicant seeks certain declarations about his obligations under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (“the Act”). The respondent contends that the issues being theoretical he has no standing to seek declaratory relief. It will…

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 Scott v WorkCover Queensland

Details

AGLC: Scott v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QSC 414
Case: [2000] QSC 414
Decision Date: 20 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Scott v WorkCover Queensland involves a dispute regarding the entitlement to and liability for compensation under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. The applicant, Scott, sought a declaration that a particular form used for a notice of claim for damages was not an approved form as required by section 280 of the Act. The respondent, WorkCover Queensland, argued that the form in question was indeed an approved form.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the form, which was purported to be approved by the chief executive of WorkCover Queensland, conformed with the requirements of section 280 of the Act. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the form met the criteria set out in the Act for a notice of claim for damages. The secondary issue was the effect of using a form that did not conform to the Act on the applicant's entitlement to compensation.

The court examined the statutory requirements for the notice of claim and compared them to the form provided. It found that the form in question did not comply with the necessary provisions of the Act. As a result, the court concluded that the form was not an approved form for the purposes of section 280. This finding had implications for the applicant's entitlement to compensation, as the use of a non-compliant form could potentially affect the validity of the claim. The court made a declaration that the form was not an approved form and further declarations were made in relation to the applicant's entitlements.

Orders

Orders of the court

A declaration that the form being exhibit 1 to the affidavit of Peter John Hooper filed 18 October 2000 which on its face purports to be a form approved by the chief executive officer of WorkCover Queensland is not an approved form for the purposes of s 280 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.

Declarations that the applicant

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.

(a)	need not give notice as stipulated by s 280(1) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 whether within the period of limitation for bringing a proceeding for damages under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 or otherwise;
(b)	need not give WorkCover written notice under s 281 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 of any change in relation to the information given in a notice of claim;
(c)	need not organise and hold a conference of the parties of the kind referred to in s 293 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996;
(d)	need not make a written formal offer of settlement as required by s 294 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996; and
(e)	need not await the occurrence of the events or any of the events referred to in s 303 of the Act,