Thiess Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 101

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Thiess Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 101
PARTIES:	Thiess Pty Ltd Appellant v Workers' Compensation Regulator Respondent
CASE NO:	WC/2022/208
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	14 April 2025
HEARING DATES:	15, 16, 17 and 18 April 2024
DATES OF WRITTEN CLOSING SUBMISSIONS: MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Appellant's submissions filed 3 July 2024 Respondent's submissions filed 5 August 2024 Appellant's submissions in reply filed 20 August 2024 McLennan IC Mackay
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The Respondent's review decision of 24 November 2022 is confirmed. 3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of the hearing, to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject to a further application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR – physical injury – employer appeals against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator to accept worker's application for compensation – whether the appellant suffered a personal injury – whether the appellant's employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury – appeal dismissed
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32, s 34, s 558 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) s 132 Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031 Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 008 Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 203 Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262 SPE Pty Ltd v Q-COMP and Gary Clifford Fuller [2010] ICQ 32 State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q–Comp and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No 2) [2021] ICQ 13
APPEARANCES:	Mr S. P. Gray of counsel, instructed by HWL Ebsworth Lawyers for the Appellant. Mr P. B. O'Neill of counsel, directly instructed by the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

This appeal concerns Ms Sandy Gray, a lady in her mid-forties who worked for Thiess Pty Ltd at the Lake Vermont Coal Mine, Dysart in Central Queensland.[1]
[1] Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 10 March 2023, [3].
On 4 May 2022, there was a mechanical failure in the dump truck operated by Ms Gray. She was injured when the truck jolted back and forth.

WorkCover rejected Ms Gray's application for compensation,[2] so she appealed to the Workers' Compensation Regulator to review that decision.[3] The Regulator found in favour of Ms Gray.[4]
[2] 15 June 2022; Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 10 March 2023, [46].
[3] 9 September 2022; Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 10 March 2023, [47].
[4] 24 November 2022; Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 10 March 2023, [48].
Thiess has now appealed the Regulator's decision to compensate Ms Gray for her workplace injury. That is the subject of this Decision.
Medical history
Less than four years earlier, Ms Gray was violently assaulted.
She developed secondary right arm brachialgia, resulting in "some right sided neck pain, some sporadic right arm pain, and…

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 Thiess Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Thiess Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 101
Case: [2025] QIRC 101
Decision Date: 14 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thiess Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the employer, Thiess Pty Ltd, appealed against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator to accept an application for compensation by Ms Gray, an employee. The dispute centred around whether Ms Gray suffered a personal injury and whether her employment was a significant contributing factor to any injury she sustained. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the Regulator's decision and determining whether it was legally sound.

The court examined the evidence regarding the occurrence and nature of the injury Ms Gray claimed to have suffered. It was necessary to assess whether the data from the truck's operational systems supported Ms Gray's account of experiencing a significant jolting force during the last phase of the dumping process. The court also considered whether the employer had adequately investigated the possibility of falling rock as an alternate cause of the force Ms Gray felt. The court was required to decide if the employer's interpretation of the operational data, which indicated no abnormalities during the relevant period, was sufficient to counter Ms Gray's claim of injury.

The court found that while there were limitations in the operational data, it did not indicate any significant abnormality during the last phase of the dump process. The evidence from the Investigation Report and expert witnesses supported the Regulator's conclusion that Ms Gray had experienced a significant and unexplained force during the unloading phase. This force was markedly different from what the truck normally experienced and was concentrated on the left-hand side of the truck, where the hydraulic strut failure occurred. The court accepted the Regulator's view that the available evidence supported Ms Gray's claim of injury and that her employment was a significant contributing factor.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Regulator's decision to accept Ms Gray's application for compensation was upheld. The court ordered that Thiess Pty Ltd pay the Workers' Compensation Regulator's costs of the hearing, with an opportunity for the parties to agree on the amount or for the matter to be further addressed if agreement could not be reached.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Respondent's review decision of 24 November 2022 is confirmed.

3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent'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

In my view, the evidence has established that Ms Gray was subjected to a jolting force during the dumping process. That is because the Investigation Report and evidence of Mr Smith refer to "a significant and unexplained force which impacted primarily on the left-hand side of the truck occurred during the 30 second unloading phase".[92] Relevant to that is the location of hydraulic strut that failed immediately behind the driver's cabin, on the left-hand side of the truck.[93] Further, the Investigation Report and evidence of Mr Smith support a conclusion that the "force giving rise to oscillations in the suspension data was greater than anything the truck experienced during that circuit and in relation to the left front suspension strut the data records that the pressure approached the maximum reading of the sensor of 6,000 pounds per square inch",[94] at a time "when the truck is in neutral, stationary and with the handbrake applied where you would expect minimal movement in the suspension."[95] I accept the Regulator's conclusion that this differed markedly from the comparative data obtained from a truck similar to that driven by Ms Gray.[96][92] Exhibit 1, 579; T 4-23, T4-24, lines 1-23; T4-25, lines 9-25; T4-27, lines 9-19; Respondent's closing submissions filed 5 August 2024, [7].[93] Exhibit 2, pg 240 – 241; T 2-25, lines 25-30; T 2-25, lines 4-5; T 2-25, lines35-41; Respondent's closing submissions filed 5 August 2024, [7][94] Exhibit 1, Investigation Report; T4-24, lines 15-22; Respondent's closing submissions filed 5 August 2024, [7].[95] Exhibit 1, pg 579; T4-23, lines 38-46; T4-24, lines 1-10; T4-25, lines 27-29; Respondent's closing submissions filed 5 August 2024, [7].[96] Exhibit 4, fig 5; T4-24, lines 24-47; T4-25, lines1-25; Respondent's closing submissions filed 5 August 2024, [7].Consideration - When the jolting force occurred Ms Gray's report that the severe jolting she experienced occurred in the last phase of the 30 second dumping process set Thiess down the path of investigating any abnormalities in the truck's operational data, with particular attention to that time period. Thiess asserted there was no evidence of a severe jolting force revealed in the operational data in that time period. Thiess argued Ms Gray ought to be held to her account that the jolting force occurred in the last phase of the dump specifically – so a broader consideration of the entire 30 second dumping process is impermissible. However, 30 seconds is a very short time period. Ms Gray stated that she had assumed the severe jolting force experienced was caused by falling rock. It is not clear whether or not that alternate possibility was investigated. It follows then that she reasonably recollected that occurred in the last phase of the dump process. The witnesses called by the Appellant to give evidence about the interpretation of the operational data obtained from the truck attested that no abnormalities are evident in that time period. Notwithstanding my earlier circumspection about the reliability of the data and the interpretation of it, I accept that while there are certainly limitations to it, the available data does not appear to point to any abnormality in the last phase of the dump process.