Stockwell v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 100

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Stockwell v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 100
PARTIES:	Stockwell, Paula Cherie (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2022/113
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	9 April 2025
HEARING DATE:	9 March 2023
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Hartigan DP Brisbane
ORDER:	1. The Appeal is allowed. 2. The decision of the Respondent dated 3 June 2022 is set aside. *3. The Appellant's application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003* (Qld) is accepted. 4. The Respondent is to pay the Appellant's costs of the hearing, to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject to a further application to the Commission.**
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – EMPLOYMENT RELATED INJURY, DISABILITY OR DISEASE – EMPLOYMENT SUBSTANTIAL OR SIGNIFICANT FACTOR – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant, a worker, appeals decision of the respondent to reject a workers' compensation claim – where the appellant had to use the public bathroom before her shift commenced – where the appellant suffered an injury – where WorkCover Queensland rejected the application for compensation – where the respondent confirmed the decision of WorkCover Queensland – whether the worker's injury was compensable – whether the worker's injury arose out of, or in the course of, her employment –whether the worker's employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury - whether the injury occurred while the worker was at or after she attended at her place of employment – whether the worker was temporarily absent from her place of employment – whether the injury occurred during the course of her employment – the appeal is allowed
LEGISLATION:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 11, s 32, s 34, s 35
CASES:	Comcare v PVYW (2013) 250 CLR 246 Da Ros v Qantas Airways Ltd [2010] NSWCA 89 Glass v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] ICQ 1 Kavanagh v Commonwealth (1960) 103 CLR 547 Mayne v South Kalgurli GM Ltd (1907) 9 WALR 152 Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] 1 Qd R 519 Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP & Blanch (2009) 191 QGIG 115 Stewart v Metropolitan Water, Sewerage & Drainage Board (1932) 48 CLR 216 Telstra Corporation Limited v Bowden (2012) 206 FCR 207 Waugh v Blackwood (2015) 251 IR 126 Weaver v Tredegar Iron & Coal Co Ltd [1940] AC 955
APPEARANCES:	Mr P.N. Nolan of counsel instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the Appellant Mr P.B. O'Neill of counsel directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

The Appellant, Ms Paula Stockwell, appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Regulator') confirming the decision of WorkCover Queensland ('WorkCover') to reject Ms Stockwell's application for compensation.

WorkCover rejected Ms Stockwell's claim for compensation on the basis that Ms Stockwell did not sustain an 'injury' in accordance with ss 32, 34(1)(c) and 35 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('WCR Act').

The issues in dispute arise in the context of…

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 Stockwell v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Stockwell v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 100
Case: [2025] QIRC 100
Decision Date: 9 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Stockwell v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the appellant, a worker, appealed against the respondent's decision to reject her workers' compensation claim. The appellant had to use the public bathroom before her shift commenced and suffered an injury in the process. WorkCover Queensland initially rejected her application for compensation, and the respondent upheld this decision. The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant's injury was compensable under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's injury was "arising out of or in the course of" her employment, as required by s 32(1) of the Act. The appellant argued that her injury was compensable because it occurred after she entered the premises on which her employment was situated, during a time while she was there for the engagement of work duties. She also claimed that the injury was caused by slipping on a puddle situated at the traverse between her workplace and the bathrooms that employees were expected to use. The respondent contended that the injury did not arise out of, or in the course of the appellant's employment, as she had not commenced work for the day and was not due to commence until 9.00am. The respondent further argued that at the time the appellant sustained the injuries she was not performing any of her work duties or anything incidental to her work duties, and her employment was not a significant contributing factor to her injury.

The court found that the appellant's explanation for choosing to access Bathroom B was logical and reasonable in the circumstances. It held that the injury was compensable as it occurred after the appellant entered the premises on which her employment was situated, during a time while she was there for the engagement of work duties. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the appellant's employment was not a significant contributing factor to her injury, as she was on her way to the bathroom that employees were expected to use. The court held that the injury occurred from a hazard at the place where the employer placed the appellant, and her employment brought her to the particular locality where that danger arose.

The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the respondent dated 3 June 2022 was set aside. The appellant's application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) was accepted. The respondent was to pay the appellant's costs of the hearing, to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject to a further application to the Commission.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appeal is allowed.

2. The decision of the Respondent dated 3 June 2022 is set aside.

3. The Appellant's application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) is accepted.

4. The Respondent is to pay the Appellant's costs of the hearing, to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject to a further application to the Commission.

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

The Appellant explained that she chose to access Bathroom B as she considered it to be more readily accessible when leaving from the backdoor of the Showroom. That is consistent with the map which evidences that Bathroom B is at the end of the laneway that the backdoor exits onto. The Appellant's explanation for choosing to access Bathroom B is logical and reasonable in the circumstances. Consideration As referred to in [5] above, the Appellant contends that she has suffered an injury in reliance on alternative contentions. The first of those contentions is that she suffered an injury within the meaning of s 32(1) of the WCR Act. Is the Injury one within the meaning of s 32(1) of the WCR Act? The Appellant contends that the injury falls within an injury for the purpose of s 32(1) of the WCR Act on the following basis: (a)the injury is an injury "arising out of or in the course of" the Appellant's employment within the meaning of s 32(1) of the WCR Act, in that: (i) the injury occurred after the Appellant entered the premises on which her employment was situated,[35] during a time whilst she was there for the engagement of work duties;[36][35] Mayne v South Kalgurli GM Ltd (1907) 9 WALR 152, 159 ('Mayne'). [36] Ibid 160. (ii) the injury was caused by the Appellant slipping on a puddle situated at the traverse between her workplace and the bathrooms that the employees were expected to use. The injury occurred from a hazard at the place where the employer placed the Appellant,[37] and her employment brought her to the particular locality where that danger arose.[38][37] Comcare v PVYW (2013) 250 CLR 246 ('Comcare v PVYW').[38] Telstra Corporation Limited v Bowden (2012) 206 FCR 207. The Respondent contends that the Appellant's injury did not arise out of, or in the course of the Appellant's employment with Kitchen Connection because: (a)the Appellant had not commenced work for the day and was not due to commence until 9.00am; (b)at the time that the Appellant sustained the injuries she was not performing any of her work duties or anything incidental to her work duties; and (c)at the time that the Appellant sustained her injuries she was on an undertaking of an entirely personal and private nature not related to her work duties with Kitchen Connection. For the same reasons set out in the preceding paragraph, the Respondent contends that the Appellant's employment was not a significant contributing factor to her injury. The Respondent further contends that at the time that the Appellant sustained the injury: (a)the Appellant had left the premises on which her employer was situated; (b)the Appellant was not undertaking any of her work duties or in fact anything incidental to those duties; and As is evident from the Regulator's submissions, it contends that the Appellant completed her journey from home to work when the Appellant entered the workplace so it could not be said that this is a journey claim. The Regulator further contends that the injury is not compensable as the injury occurred before 9.00am when the Appellant was rostered to commence work. The effect of the Regulator's position is that an employee who attends at their place of work in the window of time between when they complete their journey but before the commencement of work will not be afforded any protection under the WCR Act if they are injured before their commencement time.