Sharples v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Case [2020] ICQ 20

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sharples v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] ICQ 020

PARTIES:  

Sharples, Kaye Leslie
(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

FILE NO.:

 C/2016/11

PROCEEDING:

 Application

DELIVERED ON:

 28 October 2020

HEARING DATES: 

30 July 2020 and 19 August 2020

MEMBER:

 Merrell DP
HEARD AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS:

The Appellant's application is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW - QUEENSLAND - APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT - appeal against decision of Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to the Industrial Court of Queensland - no action taken by Appellant in relation to the appeal for at least one year - Appellant's application to take further action on appeal - relevant considerations in determining whether order should be made allowing Appellant to take further action on appeal - Appellant failed to discharge onus to demonstrate grounds exist to take further action on appeal - no order made allowing Appellant to take further action on appeal - Appellant's application dismissed

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 4, r 6, r 9, r 230 and r 231

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 389

Workers' Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003,
s 32 and s 561

CASES:

Artahs Pty Ltd v Gall Standfield & Smith (A Firm) [2011] QSC 273

Barnes v Q-COMP & Hatch Pty Ltd [2017] QIRC 25

Blackwood v Pearce [2015] ICQ 012

Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; (1986) 162 CLR 1

Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 8

du Boulay v Worrell [2009] QCA 63

Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28; (2019) 372 ALR 383

Raabe v The Brisbane North Regional Health Authority & Or [2000] QSC 257

Sharples v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2016] QIRC 046

University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) [1985] HCA 28; (1985) 59 ALJR 481

William Crosby & Co Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1963] HCA 6; (1963) 109 CLR 490

APPEARANCES:

Mr T. Sharples for the Appellant

Mr S. McLeod QC directly instructed by Ms. C‑L. Godfrey of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. Ms Kaye Sharples taught English Communication at the Palm Beach Currumbin State High School and claimed that she suffered a psychiatric or psychological injury arising out of, or in the course of, her employment.[1]

  2. On 2 April 2014, Ms Sharples made an application for workers' compensation, pursuant to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ('the Act'), to WorkCover Queensland.  WorkCover rejected that application on 6 November 2014.  On 7 November 2014, Ms Sharples applied to the Workers' Compensation Regulator to review the WorkCover decision.  On 23 January 2015, the Regulator rejected Ms Sharples' application for review.  On 12 March 2015, Ms Sharples appealed the Regulator's review decision to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.[2]

    [2] Sharples (n 1) [2].

  3. By decision delivered by Deputy President Kaufman on 20 April 2016, Ms Sharples' appeal was dismissed.[3] Deputy President Kaufman found that while Ms Sharples suffered a psychological…

Continue reading Sharples v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sharples v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] ICQ 20
Case
[2020] ICQ 20
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sharples v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the Industrial Court of Queensland was tasked with determining whether Ms Sharples should be allowed to take further action on her appeal against a decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The core issue before the court was whether Ms Sharples had demonstrated grounds sufficient to warrant an exception to the general prohibition on delayed action as outlined in rule 230(1) of the Industrial Court Rules. Ms Sharples had not taken any action in relation to her appeal for a year, which triggered the application of rule 230(1).

The court considered the relevant factors as stipulated in rule 230(3) of the Industrial Court Rules to assess whether Ms Sharples should be granted permission to proceed with her appeal. These factors included the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the delay would prejudice the other party. The court meticulously reviewed the history of the case, noting that Ms Sharples had not filed any amended outlines of argument as directed and had requested several adjournments, including one due to her husband's medical condition. Despite the absence of significant prejudice to the Regulator, the court found that the overall delay and lack of a compelling reason to excuse the delay outweighed any minor inconvenience to the Regulator. Ultimately, the court concluded that Ms Sharples had not discharged the onus of proving that an exception to the rule should be made in her favour.

As a result, the court dismissed Ms Sharples' application to take further action on her appeal. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the strict application of the rules governing delayed actions in appeals before the Industrial Court. The court's ruling emphasized that the general prohibition on delayed action serves to maintain the efficiency and fairness of the judicial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Appellant's application is dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons that follow, I will not make an order allowing Ms Sharples to take further action in her appeal.Further background On 28 November 2016, President Martin stated that he had in mind that the appeal be adjourned to the next sittings of the Court in the first two weeks of February 2017.[7] His Honour then made other directions, namely, that if there were to be any changes to Ms Sharples' written appeal outline of argument, then the amended outline was to be filed and served by close of business on 16 January 2017; and if such a document was filed and served, then the Regulator was to file and serve any amended outline of argument by 23 January 2017.[8] His Honour further stated that the Registry would be in touch about a date for hearing and that the appeal was adjourned to a date to be fixed.[9][7] T 1-5, ll 10-11.[8] T 1-5, ll 21-25.[9] T 1-6, ll 16-17. On 6 December 2016, the Registrar forwarded to Ms Sharples a copy of the transcript of the proceedings before President Martin on 28 November 2016.[10][10] Exhibit 1, para. 22. No amended outline of argument was filed and served by Ms Sharples. On 9 June 2017:·Ms Sharples filed a notice of appointment of agent, appointing Mr Sharples as her agent; and·Mr Sharples sent an email to the Registry in which he advised that a solicitor was to review Ms Sharples' matter in regard to possible representation and requested that the matter not be listed in June 2017 to give that solicitor '… an opportunity to come to grips with the matter.'[11] [11] Exhibit 1, para. 17 and exhibit C. Then, by email to the Registry sent on 18 July 2017, Ms Sharples forwarded a letter from Mr Sharples' doctor, addressed to the Registrar, stating that Mr Sharples had suffered a traumatic chest injury and would need eight weeks for recuperation following a thoracotomy. Ms Sharples requested that the appeal not be listed for two months.[12] Mr Sharples' evidence was that the chest injury occurred when his wife '… stabbed me in the heart with a kitchen knife on or about 4 July 2017.'[13] By notice of listing dated 20 December 2019, Ms Sharples' appeal was listed for review before the President on 15 January 2020, and on 13 January 2020, Ms Sharples' application was filed. [12] Exhibit 1, para. 18 and exhibit C.[13] Exhibit 3, para. 21. After the hearing of Ms Sharples' application on 30 July 2020, it was brought to my attention that the Court file contained email correspondence exchanged between Ms Sharples and/or Mr Sharples, and the Registry, between 28 November 2019 and 20 December 2019. This email correspondence included an email sent from Ms Sharples on 28 November 2019, attaching an application to inspect the Court file, and a later email sent on 2 December 2019, attaching an application to inspect the Commission file of the matter before Deputy President Kaufman. The subsequent correspondence concerned the Registry's advice that r 230 was enlivened because of Ms Sharples' delay in prosecuting her appeal. The last correspondence contained the notice of listing of the mention before President Martin on 15 January 2020.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In my view, these matters outweigh the fact that there is no real prejudice to the Regulator if the appeal proceeded. For all these reasons, I am not persuaded that there is a good reason to except Ms Sharples' appeal from the general prohibition imposed by r 230(1) of the Rules.Conclusion The onus was on Ms Sharples to demonstrate, by having regard to the factors referred to in r 230(3) of the Rules, that she should be allowed to take further action on her appeal. For the reasons given above, Ms Sharples has failed to discharge that onus. Ms Sharples' application is dismissed.Order

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.