Spencer v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2017] QIRC 65

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Spencer v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 065
PARTIES:	Jera Spencer (appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2015/97
PROCEEDING:	Application to dismiss
DELIVERED ON:	19 June 2017
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2017
MEMBER:	Deputy President D L O'Connor
ORDERS :	1. The appellant's appeal is dismissed. 2. The decision of the respondent dated 24 March 2015 is affirmed. 3. No order as to costs.
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 dismissed
CASES:	Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 45 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s144A House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor [2001] QCA 176; [2002] 1 Qd R 647
APPEARANCES:	G G Clark for respondent, Workers' Compensation Regulator No appearance by the appellant

Ex Tempore Reasons for Decision

The appellant lodged an application for compensation with WorkCover in respect of a laceration injury sustained to his right little finger on 9 August 2014. At the time of his injury, the appellant was employed as a kitchenhand with Favfine Pty Ltd trading as Belle Vue Café. WorkCover conducted an investigation and determined that the application was one for acceptance. The claim was determined as "cut tendon to R little finger" and the appellant received compensation entitlements from 9 August 2014. On 22 January 2015 WorkCover terminated the appellant's weekly compensation entitlements in accordance with s144A of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The appellant sought a review of that decision and on 24 March 2015 the respondent confirmed the decision of WorkCover. It was against that decision that the appellant sought appeal in this Commission.
The regulator relies upon the chronology of events set out in the application for WC/2015/97. For convenience I set out that chronology below:

"On or about 9 August 2014, Mr Jera Spencer, the Respondent to this application and the Appellant in WC/2015/97, lodged an application for compensation with WorkCover Queensland (the Insurer) in respect of a laceration injury sustained to his right little finger on 9 August 2014. …
The Insurer decided to accept Mr Spencer’s application for compensation and benefits were paid from 9 August 2014. …
In its reasons for decision dated 22 January 2015, the Insurer terminated Mr Spencer’s entitlement to weekly compensation on the basis that he no longer had an incapacity as a result of the work-related finger injury. …
On or about 4 February 2015 Mr Spencer lodged an application for review in respect of the termination of his claim. …
On 24 March 2015 the Regulator confirmed the decision of the Insurer to terminate Mr Jera’s entitlement to weekly compensation in accordance with section 144A of the Act. …
On 16 April 2015 Mr Spencer filed a Notice of Appeal against the Regulator’s decision. …
By directions order…

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 Spencer v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Spencer v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 65
Case: [2017] QIRC 65
Decision Date: 19 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Spencer v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the appellant, Spencer, sought to appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which had dismissed his claim for workers' compensation. The primary issue before the court was whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the appellant's failure to comply with a directions order and his inaction on the matter for over 12 months.

The court was required to consider whether the appellant's prolonged inactivity and non-compliance with procedural orders warranted the dismissal of his appeal. It was noted that the appellant had not filed any submissions or evidence in support of his appeal, and had not responded to any correspondence or orders from the court. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the appellant's inaction and whether there were any mitigating factors that could be taken into account.

The court found that the appellant's failure to comply with the directions order and his inaction for over a year demonstrated a lack of diligence and commitment to pursuing his appeal. The court held that the appellant's conduct was an abuse of the court process, and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court further affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 24 March 2015, and made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the respondent dated 24 March 2015 is affirmed.

3. No order as to costs.

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.