Smith v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2017] QIRC 70

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Smith v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 070
PARTIES:	Bradley James Colin Smith (appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2016/226
PROCEEDING:	Application to dismiss
DELIVERED ON:	22 June 2017
HEARING DATE:	22 June 2017
MEMBER:	Deputy President D L O'Connor
ORDERS :	1. The appellant's appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPLICATION TO DISMISS – where the appellant has not complied with a directions order – where the appellant has not taken action in his matter for more than 12 months – appeal struck out
CASES:	Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 6, r 45 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor [2001] QCA 176; [2002] 1 Qd R 647
APPEARANCES:	R Jamieson for the respondent, Workers' Compensation Regulator No appearance by the appellant

Ex Tempore Reasons for Decision

On 22 August 2016 the Respondent received an application for review by Mr Bradley James Colin Smith, the appellant in these proceedings. WorkCover had previously considered an application by Mr French an employee of Pegasus Bloodstock. Mr French claimed that he sustained an injury on 23 February 2016 during track work at Deagon Racecourse. Mr French sustained an injury to his right knee as a result of a fall from a horse that apparently was "spooked" and reared up. In short, the appellant contends that Mr French was not injured as claimed; he did not injure his right knee at work but as a result of a motorcycle accident; that Dr Masoud issued a workers' compensation medical certificate on spurious grounds; and Mr French had a history of making claims for workers' compensation.
On 21 October 2016, the Respondent confirmed the decision of WorkCover concluding that Mr French's application for compensation was one for acceptance.

It is against that decision that the appellant appealed to this Commission.

The regulator relies upon the chronology of events set out in the application for WC/2016/226. For convenience I set out the relevant parts of that chronology below:

"On or about 29 February 2016, Mr Ian French, lodged an application for compensation with the Insurer in respect of a right knee strain which he alleged was sustained in the course of his employment on 23 February 2016.
In a statement provided to the Insurer on 29 February 2016, Mr French advised he was employed as a track work rider by Bradley James Colin Smith, the Respondent.
The Insurer decided to accept Mr French’s application for compensation and on 1 June 2016 provided the Respondent with reasons for this decision. The Insurer determined Mr French was a ‘worker’ in accordance with s11 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) employed by the Respondent at the time of the claimed incident and that he had sustained an ‘injury’ in accordance with s32 of the Act.
On 22 August 2016 the Respondent lodged an application for review in respect of the acceptance of Mr French’s claim.

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 Smith v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Smith v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 70
Case: [2017] QIRC 70
Decision Date: 22 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Smith v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the appellant, Smith, appealed against the decision of the primary tribunal that dismissed his claim for workers' compensation. Smith's claim was dismissed because he failed to comply with a directions order and did not take any action in his matter for more than 12 months. The Workers' Compensation Regulator opposed the appeal, arguing that it should be dismissed due to Smith's lack of compliance with the directions order and inactivity in his case. The court was required to determine whether the appeal should be dismissed for Smith's non-compliance with the directions order and prolonged inactivity in his case.

The court found that Smith's non-compliance with the directions order and inactivity in his case for more than 12 months justified the dismissal of his appeal. The court held that Smith had not demonstrated any reasonable excuse for his non-compliance and inactivity, and that his failure to comply with the directions order and take action in his case for a prolonged period demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing his claim. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed as it was in the interests of justice to do so, and that there was no merit in Smith's appeal.

The court dismissed the appeal and made an order that Smith's appeal be struck out. The court held that Smith's non-compliance with the directions order and inactivity in his case for more than 12 months justified the dismissal of his appeal. The court found that there was no reasonable excuse for Smith's non-compliance and inactivity, and that his failure to comply with the directions order and take action in his case for a prolonged period demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing his claim. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed as it was in the interests of justice to do so, and that there was no merit in Smith's appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellant's appeal is dismissed.

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.