Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) - [2022] ICQ 28

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2022] ICQ 28
PARTIES:	Shaw, Trent (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO.:	C/2022/5
PROCEEDING:	Application in existing proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	7 September 2022
HEARING DATE: DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:	On the papers Respondent's written submissions filed on 26 August 2022
MEMBER:	Merrell DP
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
ORDER:	That the Appellant pays the Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $8,211.20.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW - QUEENSLAND - APPEALS - APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT - PROCEDURE - COSTS - Appellant appealed to Industrial Court of Queensland against a decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission regarding a decision of the Respondent which confirmed the rejection of the Appellant's application for workers' compensation - pursuant to r 226(2)(f) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, the Appellant's application to appeal was dismissed - Respondent seeks costs pursuant to s 563 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - whether Appellant's appeal made without reasonable cause - Appellant's application to appeal made without reasonable cause - costs awarded in favour of Respondent
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 70 and r 226 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, sch 1 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32 and s 563
CASES:	Kanan v Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union [1992] FCA 366; (1992) 43 IR 257 Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] ICQ 024 Yousif v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 10
APPEARANCES:	The Appellant in person. Mr P. O'Neill of Counsel instructed by Ms R. Jamieson of the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision
Introduction

After a hearing on 16 June 2022, by decision dated 9 August 2022, pursuant to r 226(2)(f) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 ('the Rules'), I granted the Respondent's application in existing proceedings to dismiss the Appellant's application to appeal ('the Appellant's appeal') in this matter. The parties were also ordered to exchange and file submissions on the costs of the hearing.[1]
[1] Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] ICQ 024, [79].
I granted the Respondent's application in existing proceedings to dismiss the Appellant's appeal because it disclosed no competent or arguable grounds of appeal against the decision of the Industrial Commissioner which had dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the review decision of the Respondent. The review decision of the Respondent confirmed a decision of WorkCover Queensland that the Appellant did not suffer an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ('the Act').[2]
[2] Ibid [51]-[77].

By email dated 26 August 2022, the Appellant confirmed that he would not be making any submissions as to costs of the hearing.
The Respondent has filed submissions about costs. The Respondent, pursuant to s 563 of the Act, seeks its costs of the hearing. Further, the Respondent seeks its costs in accordance with r 70(2)(b) of the Rules, namely, that its costs be payable on the scale of costs for the…

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 Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2022] ICQ 28
Case: [2022] ICQ 28
Decision Date: 7 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) involved the Appellant, Shaw, challenging a decision made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, upheld by the Respondent, the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The dispute centred on the Regulator's refusal to grant Shaw's application for workers' compensation, a decision Shaw sought to overturn via an appeal to the Industrial Court of Queensland. The crux of the matter was whether the appeal brought forth by Shaw was grounded in reasonable cause, as per the provisions outlined in the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.

The court was tasked with determining whether Shaw's appeal to the Industrial Court was made without reasonable cause, a query pivotal under the legal framework provided by section 563 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. This inquiry necessitated a meticulous examination of the procedural legitimacy and substantive merits of Shaw's appeal against the Regulator's decision. The court's analysis involved assessing whether the appeal process was followed correctly and if the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success based on the evidence and arguments presented.

In its deliberation, the court concluded that Shaw's appeal was indeed made without reasonable cause. The reasoning behind this decision was rooted in the assessment that the appeal did not present a viable challenge to the Regulator's decision, either procedurally or substantively. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Respondent, awarding costs to the Regulator as stipulated by section 563 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The final order mandated Shaw to compensate the Regulator for the incurred costs, amounting to $8,211.20.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Appellant pays the Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $8,211.20.

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.