Singh v WorkCover Queensland

[2019] QDC 177

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Singh v WorkCover Queensland  [2019] QDC 177

PARTIES:

TENJINDER SINGH
(applicant)

v

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO:

D3052/19

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 September 2019

JUDGE:

McGill SC DCJ

ORDER:

Application struck out. Order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Entitlement to and liability for compensation – whether employment connected with Queensland – whether applicant usually worked in Queensland – effect of worker’s intention.

Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 113.

Ferguson v WorkCover Queensland [2013] QSC 78 – followed.
RHG Home Loans Pty Ltd v Employers Mutual NSW Ltd [2012] 1 Qd R 262 – cited.
SS Family Pty Ltd v WorkCover Queensland [2018] QCA 296 – cited.
Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] NSWSC 26 – followed.

COUNSEL:

A J Moon for the applicant
C S Harding for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Dwyer Law Group for the applicant
DWF (Australia) for the respondent

1. This is an application under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (“the Act”) s 289(6) for the court to fix a time and place for a compulsory conference in the course of the pre-court procedures in respect of a claim under that Act. The respondent has raised, as a preliminary point, the question of whether the Act applies to the applicant at all, on the basis that the applicant was working in New South Wales at the time when the injury was sustained, and that employment was not connected with Queensland for the purposes of s 113 of the Act.

1. The originating application, filed on 26 August 2019, named as the sole respondent WorkCover Queensland.  The matter came before the court on 2 September, when it was adjourned for hearing to 3 September 2019.  On neither occasion was an order made adding or substituting respondents.  Despite this, a number of documents produced on behalf of the applicant had titles purporting to identify other respondents.  That was not appropriate.  The parties to an originating application are those defined in it as applicant and respondent, and unless an order is made to change that, the parties remain the same.  The title follows from that, and does not change throughout the proceeding in the absence of any change in the parties. 

Background

1. On 27 October 2017 the applicant served on Surfside Bus Lines Pty Ltd (“Surfside”) a part one notice of claim under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, alleging that he suffered personal injury at about 8 pm on 19 September 2016 while working at Surfside’s bus depot at Ourimbah Road Tweed Heads in New South Wales, when he slipped on a wet bus ramp.[1] It was alleged that he had suffered disc protrusion at the L5/S1 level, a tendon injury to his left shoulder, and an adjustment disorder. On 22 June 2018 the applicant served a notice of claim under the…