Stratford North Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Link copied
Case Copied 68 min read

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Stratford North Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator & Ors [2025] ICQ 004

PARTIES:      

Stratford North Pty Ltd
(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(First Respondent)

and

Jared Ross Dinning
(Second Respondent)

CASE NO.:

C/2024/2

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission

DELIVERED ON:

 21 March 2025

HEARING DATES:

 1 May 2024

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

O'Connor VP

Brisbane
ORDERS: 

1.         The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION - APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT - where appellant employed as a truck driver - where appellant injured during employment - whether the appellant's employment connected with Queensland for the purpose of s 113 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCR Act) - whether appellant ''usually works" in Queensland - whether appellant is ''usually based'' in Queensland - where appellant appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission(QIRC) - where appeal dismissed - where appellant appealed decision of QIRC to the Industrial Court of Queensland pursuant to s 557 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 - whether appeal filed out of time - where appeal against a decision made under the WCR Act is limited to errors of law or excess or want of jurisdiction - whether errors of law by commissioner identified in applying s 113 of the WCR Act - whether findings by commissioner supported by the evidence
LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 38
Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) , ss 3, 564, 557
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), ss 32, 113, 561
Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2000 (Qld) , r 232

CASES:

Abbott v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 031

Avon Products Pty Ltd v Falls [2010] ACTCA 21; 5 ACTLR 34

A1 Rubber (Aust) Pty ltd v Chapman (Office of Industrial Relations) [2019] ICQ 16

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Cameron v Q-Comp [2011] ICQ 27

Chapman v State of Queensland [2003] QCA 172

Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33

Covill v WorkCover Queensland [2022] QSC 171

Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 8

Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 9

Ferguson v WorkCover Queensland [2013] QSC 78.

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Irving v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 030

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369

Martin v R G Hibbens Pty Ltd [2010] NSWWCCPD 83

Mater Misericordiae Health Service Brisbane Ltd v Q-Comp (2005) QGIG 144

Michael Hanns v Greyhound Pioneer Australia Limited [2006] ACTSC 5.

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24

Neophytos Foundadjis v Collin Bailey  [2007] ICQ 10

Robert Bax & Associates v Cavenham Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 177

Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141

Stratford North Pty td v Workers' Compensation Regulator & Ors [2023] QIRC 359.

Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 354

Tamboritha Consultants Pty Ltd v Knight [1] [2008] WADC 78

Turay v Workers'…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stratford North 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] ICQ 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Stratford North Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the appellant, a transport company based in the Northern Territory, appeals a decision by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) which upheld a decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator (WCR) to grant workers' compensation to the respondent, Mr Jared Dinning, who was injured while employed by the appellant. The central issue is whether Mr Dinning's employment with the appellant is sufficiently connected to Queensland for the purposes of s 113 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), which governs the conditions under which compensation is payable. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether Mr Dinning "usually works" or "is usually based" in Queensland.

The court examined the statutory criteria outlined in s 113 of the WCR Act, focusing on whether Mr Dinning's employment with the appellant was connected to Queensland, as required for compensation to be payable. The court considered Mr Dinning's work history with the appellant and the intentions of both parties. Mr Dinning initially worked on a specific job transporting huts from Queensland to the Northern Territory, but due to COVID-19 border restrictions, his role changed to driving the truck to the Queensland border. The court found that despite the change in duties, Mr Dinning was usually based in Queensland for the purposes of his employment. This conclusion was based on the evidence that he spent a significant portion of his employment in Queensland and that his role, while changed, was still connected to Queensland. The court also noted that the findings of the QIRC were supported by the evidence.

The Industrial Court of Queensland dismissed the appeal, finding that the QIRC's decision was supported by the evidence and correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions. The court held that Mr Dinning's employment was connected with Queensland under s 113(3)(b) of the WCR Act, as he was usually based in Queensland for the purposes of his employment with the appellant. Therefore, the decision of the QIRC was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

On 16 January 2024 Stratford North Pty Ltd ('the Appellant') filed an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') confirming a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the First Respondent') to grant a claim by Mr Jared Dinning ('the Second Respondent') for workers' compensation entitlements under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCR Act). The decision of the Commission was released on 18 December 2023.[1][1] Stratford North Pty td v Workers' Compensation Regulator & Ors [2023] QIRC 359.Background The Second Respondent commenced employment with the Appellant in or about June 2020. There was no written contract of employment. The Appellant carries on the business as a transport company based in the Northern Territory. Mr Bradley Bloomfield was a director and sole shareholder of the Appellant. The Second Respondent was initially employed to transport and deliver oversized demountable huts from Yatala in Queensland to the Granite gold mines in the Northern Territory ('the huts job'). The Second Respondent spent the first three to four weeks of his employment at Alice Springs preparing the truck in order to undertake the huts job. The Second Respondent commenced driving the truck to collect the huts from Yatala and deliver them to the mines in the Northern Territory. However, sometime in July 2020, because of COVID-19 border restrictions, an arrangement was adopted whereby the Second Respondent drove the huts from Yatala to the Northern Territory border and another driver took the huts from the border to the Granite mine. At the completion of the huts job, the Appellant continued to employ the Second Respondent as an interstate truck driver. On 15 March 2021 the Second Respondent suffered a back injury whilst performing maintenance work on the Appellant’s truck. At the time of the injury, the truck was parked at Morayfield, Queensland. On 6 April 2021 the Second Respondent made a claim for compensation under the WCR Act. By decision dated 17 May 2021 WorkCover accepted the application for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the WCR Act. On 26 November 2021 the First Respondent confirmed the review decision. The Appellant appealed the review decision to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. On 18 December 2023, the Commission dismissed the appeal finding that the Second Respondent was a worker who is usually based in Queensland for the purposes of his employment pursuant to s 113(3)(b) of the WCR Act. This is an appeal of that decision.Statutory Framework Section 113(1) of the WCR Act provides compensation is only payable in relation to employment that is "connected with" Queensland. Section 113 of the WCR Act provides:113 Employment must be connected with State (1)Compensation under this Act is only payable in relation to employment that is connected with this State.(2)The fact that a worker is outside this State when the injury is sustained does not prevent compensation being payable under this Act in relation to employment that is connected with this State.(3)A worker's employment is connected with -(a)the State in which the worker usually works in that employment; or(b)if no State or no 1 State is identified by paragraph (a) , the State in which the worker is usually based for the purposes of that employment; or(c)if no State or no 1 State is identified by paragraph (a) or (b) , the State in which the employer’s principal place of business in Australia is located.(4)In the case of a worker on a ship, if no State or no 1 State is identified by subsection (3) , a worker's employment is, while on a ship, connected with the State in which the ship is registered or (if the ship is registered in more than 1 State) the State in which the ship most recently became registered.(5)If no State is identified by subsection (3) or (if applicable) (4), a worker's employment is connected with this State if -(a)the worker is in this State when the injury is sustained; and(b)there is no place outside Australia under the legislation of which the worker may be entitled to compensation for the same matter.(6)In deciding whether a worker usually works in a State, regard must be had to the worker's work history with the employer and the intention of the worker and employer.(7)However, regard must not be had to any temporary arrangement under which the worker works in a State for a period of not longer than 6 months.(8)Compensation under this Act does not apply in relation to the employment of a worker on a ship if the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1997 (Cwlth) applies to the worker's employment.(9)In this section - State, in a geographical sense, includes a State's relevant adjacent area as described in schedule 4 .Grounds of Appeal

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.