Stone v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2014] QIRC 164

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Stone v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation
Regulator) [2014] QIRC 164
PARTIES:	Stone, John Gilbert
(Applicant)
v
Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)
(Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2014/123
PROCEEDING:	Application to withdraw deemed admissions
DELIVERED ON:	20 October 2014
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner Fisher
ORDER:	Application to withdraw deemed admissions
granted.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PRACTICE UNDER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS RULES - Application to withdraw deemed admissions - Explanation provided - Response provided shortly after 14 days had elapsed - Response remains the same - Deemed admissions will severely hamper case - Regulator not prejudiced - Commission exercised discretion to grant application.
CASES:	Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 1999, r 49
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Orazio [1999] QSC 354
Rigato Farms Pty Ltd v Kenneth Frank Ridolfi
[2000] QCA 292
Decision

[1]     John Stone (the Applicant) has applied to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) to be granted leave to withdraw his deemed admissions made in relation to a Notice to Admit Facts (the Notice) served by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (the Regulator) on 21 March 2014. The Notice relates to an appeal filed by Mr Stone against a decision of the Regulator (Case No. WC/2013/317).
[2]      Ms Tiffany Marsh, Solicitor of Shine Lawyers, the Solicitors acting for Mr Stone, affirmed an Affidavit stating that she was "sure" she had provided a Response to the Notice prior to 4.00 pm on 4 April 2014, however, the email from Ms Marsh to the Regulator attaching the Response shows that it was sent at 4.15 pm.
[3]      At the time the Regulator stated that as it had not received the Response until approximately 4.15 pm it was of the opinion that the facts were deemed to be admitted. The attitude of the Regulator is now that it neither supports nor opposes the application.
[4]      Rule 49 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (the Rules) makes provision for a party to admit facts or documents:

"(1) A party to a proceeding (the first party) may, by notice in the approved form served on another party, ask the other party to admit, for the proceeding only, the facts or documents stated in the notice.
(2) If the other party does not, within 14 days after receiving a notice under subrule (1), serve a notice on the first party disputing the facts or the authenticity of the documents, the other party is taken to admit, for the proceeding only, the stated facts or the authenticity of the stated documents.
(3) The other party may, with the leave of the court, commission or registrar, withdraw an admission taken to have been made under subrule (2)."

[5] One of the purposes of admissions is to ensure only matters genuinely in dispute are
1

required to be determined by the Commission. This approach is especially useful in workers' compensation appeals, in which there are no pleadings and the hearings are de novo. In determining whether to grant leave to…

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 Stone v Simon Blackwood (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: [2014] QIRC 164
Decision Date: 20 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Stone v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the applicant sought to withdraw certain admissions made in the proceedings. The applicant argued that the deemed admissions would severely hamper their case and that they had provided an explanation for the delay in responding to the Regulator's notice. The application was made before the Workers' Compensation Regulator and subsequently considered by the Commission. The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had provided a sufficient explanation for the delay and whether the Regulator would be prejudiced if the deemed admissions were withdrawn.

The court found that the applicant had provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in responding to the Regulator's notice. The court also found that the Regulator would not be prejudiced if the deemed admissions were withdrawn. The court noted that the Regulator had provided a response shortly after the 14-day period had elapsed and that the response remained the same. The court exercised its discretion to grant the application to withdraw the deemed admissions. The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay was reasonable and that the Regulator's response did not indicate any prejudice.

The court granted the application to withdraw the deemed admissions. The court noted that the applicant's explanation for the delay was reasonable and that the Regulator's response did not indicate any prejudice. The court found that the deemed admissions would severely hamper the applicant's case and that it was in the interests of justice to grant the application. The court exercised its discretion to grant the application and set aside the deemed admissions. The parties were directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the new position.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to withdraw deemed admissions

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.

"(1)	A party to a proceeding (the *first party*) may, by notice in the approved form served on another party, ask the other party to admit, for the proceeding only, the facts or documents stated in the notice.
(2)	If the other party does not, within 14 days after receiving a notice under subrule (1), serve a notice on the first party disputing the facts or the authenticity of the documents, the other party is taken to admit, for the proceeding only, the stated facts or the authenticity of the stated documents.