Thompson v WorkCover Queensland - [2002] QSC 119

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Thompson v WorkCover Queensland & Anor [2002] QSC 119

PARTIES: SUZANNE GWYNNETH THOMPSON
(applicant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
AND
THE GENERAL MEDICAL ASSESSEMNT TRIBUNAL (respondent)

FILE NO/S: S 844 of 2000

DIVISION: Trial

PROCEEDING: Application for Statutory Order of Review

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 8 May 2002

DELIVERED AT: Townsville

HEARING DATE: 1 May 2002

JUDGES: Cullinane J

ORDER: Application dismissed with costs to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION - where Applicant sought damages certificate pursuant to s.265 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 - whether the General Medical Assessment Tribunal erred in determining that the Applicant had not suffered an injury for the purpose of the WorkCover Queensland Act as amended.

COUNSEL: A J H Morris QC, C McLennan for the applicant
S A McLeod for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Dempseys for the applicant
Boulton Cleary & Kern acting as Town Agents for Bradley & Co for the respondent

By this application for judicial review, the Applicant seeks the setting aside of a decision of the Second Respondent dated 1.12.00 that the Applicant had not suffered an injury for the purposes of the WorkCover Queensland Act as amended. The Applicant had sought a damages certificate pursuant to s.265 of the Act.

The Applicant’s application to the First Respondent for a certificate was based upon a psychiatric injury which she claimed to have suffered in the course of her employment with the Federated Clerks Union at Townsville between October 1996 and February 1998.

It was the Applicant’s case that her psychiatric problems had been caused by aggressive behaviour and harassment by her superior in the Union office.

The matter was referred to the General Medical Assessment Tribunal and it is the determination of the Tribunal that the Applicant did not suffer an injury for the purposes of the Act which is the subject of this application for review.

It was accepted by the Respondent that the court had the power to entertain an application of this kind in respect of such a decision.

The Tribunal had earlier given what purported to be a statement of reasons. These plainly did not comply with the requirements of the relevant legislation. It was ordered to provide a compliant statement of reasons and this is Exhibit A to an affidavit of Merinda Lynn Slaughter filed on 29 January 2002.

An injury was defined at the relevant time by s.34(1) in the following way:

“An ‘injury’ is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is the major significant factor causing the injury.” Sub paragraphs 4 and 5 go on to provide:

“(4) ‘Injury’ does not include a personal injury, disease, or aggravation of a disease sustained by a worker if the injury is a psychiatric or psychological disorder arising out of, or in the course of, any of the following circumstances--

(a) reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection…

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 Thompson v WorkCover Queensland 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: [2002] QSC 119
Decision Date: 8 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant, Thompson, sought a damages certificate pursuant to section 265 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, challenging the decision of the General Medical Assessment Tribunal (GMAT). The Applicant claimed that the Tribunal had erred in determining that he had not suffered an injury for the purposes of the Act. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The primary legal issue was whether the Tribunal had made an error in its assessment of the Applicant’s injury, which would entitle him to a damages certificate. This involved an examination of the statutory framework and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, specifically section 265, and the application of these provisions to the facts of the case. The court needed to determine if the Tribunal had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory criteria in assessing whether the Applicant had suffered an injury that would warrant a damages certificate.

The tribunal held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that the Tribunal had erred in its determination. The tribunal found that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim of an injury that met the criteria under the Act. The tribunal’s decision was based on the available medical evidence and the statutory requirements, which the Applicant had not sufficiently rebutted. The tribunal's findings were consistent with the legislative framework and did not reveal any jurisdictional error or error of law.

The application was dismissed, with costs to be assessed. This outcome reflects the tribunal's conclusion that the Applicant had not met the burden of proof required to overturn the decision of the General Medical Assessment Tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed with costs to be assessed.

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.

CITATION:	Thompson v WorkCover Queensland & Anor [2002] QSC 119
PARTIES:	SUZANNE GWYNNETH THOMPSON (applicant) v WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND AND THE GENERAL MEDICAL ASSESSEMNT TRIBUNAL (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	S 844 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application for Statutory Order of Review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	8 May 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	1 May 2002
JUDGES:	Cullinane J
ORDER:	Application dismissed with costs to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION - where Applicant sought damages certificate pursuant to s.265 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 - whether the General Medical Assessment Tribunal erred in determining that the Applicant had not suffered an injury for the purpose of the WorkCover Queensland Act as amended.
COUNSEL:	A J H Morris QC, C McLennan for the applicant S A McLeod for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Dempseys for the applicant Boulton Cleary & Kern acting as Town Agents for Bradley & Co for the respondent