South32 Cannington Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 215

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	South32 Cannington Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 215
PARTIES:	South32 Cannington Pty Ltd (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2024/56
PROCEEDING:	Application in existing proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	15 August 2025
MEMBER:	Hartigan DP
HEARD AT:	On the papers
ORDER:	The application to join WC/2024/56 and WC/2024/41 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – OTHER MATTERS – where the Appellant has filed an application in existing proceedings – where the Appellant seeks a joint hearing of two appeals – where the Appellant is an employer appellant in matter WC/2024/56 – where the Appellant is not a party to appeal WC/2024/41 – where the Appellant is the employer of the appellant worker in matter WC/2024/41 – where both matters are appeals of the appellant worker's claim for compensation for two separate injuries said to be sustained during the course of her employment and arising out of, or in relation to, the same incident – where the application to join the proceedings is opposed by the worker and the Regulator in both appeals – whether the two appeals should be determined and heard together – the application in existing proceedings is dismissed
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), r 98 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32, s 549
CASES:	Brisbane City Council v Gillow and Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2016] ICQ 7 Humphries v Newport Quays Stage 2A Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 699 Reynolds v Workers' Compensation Regulator & Ors [2019] QIRC 140

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

South32 Cannington Pty Ltd ('South32') seeks an order that its' workers' compensation appeal proceeding (WC/2024/56) and the workers' compensation appeal proceeding of Ms Jo-Anne Hardie (WC/2024/41) be heard together with the evidence in the one proceeding being the evidence in the other proceeding.
The decisions of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Regulator') appealed against by South32 and Ms Hardie are in relation to Ms Hardie's claims for compensation for a psychological injury and a physical injury said to have arisen from a work-related incident whilst employed at South32.
Ms Hardie and the Regulator each oppose the application for the proceedings to be joined.

Relevant Background

Ms Hardie was employed by South32 in the position of laboratory technician in the wet chemistry laboratory at Cannington Mine, Queensland.
Ms Hardie's Appeal

On 1 March 2023, Ms Hardie made an application for compensation for an inhalation injury described as, "inhalation of toxic chemical, possibly bromine, including damage to airway, shortness of breath" ('inhalation injury') said to have occurred through the inhalation of a substance at the wet chemistry laboratory at the Cannington Mine on
17 December 2022.
South32 rejected Ms Hardie's application for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the Act').[1]
[1] South32 is a self-insured employer, in accordance with Part 4 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). At the relevant time, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited ('Allianz') provided administrative…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read South32 Cannington Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QIRC 215
Decision Date: 15 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

South32 Cannington Pty Ltd has applied for a joint hearing of two appeals, WC/2024/56 and WC/2024/41, which involve claims for compensation related to two separate injuries sustained by a worker during her employment. The Appeals Tribunal was asked to determine whether these appeals should be heard together or separately. The application to join the proceedings was opposed by the worker and the Workers' Compensation Regulator.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the appeals should be determined and heard together, given that they pertain to injuries arising out of the same incident but involve distinct claims and parties. The Tribunal had to consider the potential complications and difficulties in terms of trial management, procedural and evidentiary issues that could arise if the appeals were to be joined. The Tribunal also needed to assess whether the interests of justice would be served by joining the appeals and if there would be any significant savings in time and cost.

The Tribunal found that despite the injuries arising from the same incident, there were several reasons why the appeals should not be joined. These included the fact that the parties in each appeal were different, with only the Regulator being common to both. Additionally, the legal issues to be determined were distinct, and the evidence concerning the injuries would likely require medical experts from different areas of specialty. The Tribunal also noted that South32, the employer in the first appeal, had no standing to appear in the second appeal, potentially increasing its costs if the proceedings were joined. The Tribunal concluded that the complications and difficulties outweighed the benefits, and thus, the application to join the appeals was dismissed.

The Tribunal made the following order: The application to join WC/2024/56 and WC/2024/41 is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to join WC/2024/56 and WC/2024/41 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

A number of potential complications arise from this including that the Regulator may lead evidence from Ms Hardie for the purpose of one appeal but have the right to cross-examine her in the other appeal. The complications and difficulties in terms of trial management, procedural and evidentiary issues that would arise if the appeals were to be joined strongly weighs against the exercise of the discretion to join the proceedings. Conclusion Despite the fact that the injuries in each of the appeals arise out of the same factual matrix, there are a number of matters which weigh against the exercise of the discretion. These matters include: (a)that each of the appeals are comprised of separate parties with only the Regulator being the common party in each appeal; (b)the legal issues to be determined are separate and distinct; (c)whilst there may be some common lay witnesses, the evidence in relation to the distinct injuries and the causal mechanism of each injury will most likely be the subject of medical experts from different areas of speciality; (d)there is no obvious saving in time and cost to South32 as it has no right to appear as a party in the physical injury appeal, if anything, joining the proceedings would add to South32's costs in terms of time and financial cost; (e)an order joining the proceedings would potentially be inconsistent with Gillow as it would permit South32 to be joined to proceedings it does not have standing to be a party to or appear in; and (f)given the separate interests and roles of Ms Hardie and the Regulator in each of the appeals there would be significant trial management, procedural and evidentiary difficulties that would arise if the proceedings were joined. As noted above, the parties may seek that the proceedings be heard consecutively, one after the other, by the same Commissioner if they consider that to be an efficient case management step. Ultimately, I have formed the view that I should not exercise the discretion to join the appeals pursuant to r 98 of the IR Rules. The appeals do not involve substantially the same question, the decision in one proceeding is not likely to determine or severely impact the other proceeding and it is not otherwise appropriate or desirable to join the matters. As set out in the reasons above, I make the following order: 1.The application to join WC/2024/56 and WC/2024/41 is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.