Townsend v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Case [2022] QIRC 105

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Townsend v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 105

PARTIES:  

Townsend, Shane

(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator

(Respondent)

CASE NO.:

 WC/2020/14

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

 25 March 2022

HEARING DATES: 

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 March 2021

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Merrell DP

Brisbane

ORDERS:

1.       Pursuant to s 558(1)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003:

(a)     the review decision of the Respondent is set aside; and

(b) another decision is substituted, namely, that the Appellant suffered an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

2.       Pursuant to r 41(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011:

(a)     the parties are to exchange and file written submissions on the costs of the hearing (of no more than two (2) pages, 12‑point font size, line and a‑half spacing with numbered paragraphs and pages) by 4.00 pm on Friday, 8 April 2022; and

(b)     unless otherwise ordered, the decision on costs be determined on the papers.
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION - appeal against review decision of Respondent - Appellant employed as a Senior Support Worker, then Operational Manager and then Director of a company that provides support services to persons who suffer from disabilities - Appellant suffered a psychiatric injury - where Appellant claims injury caused by verbal abuse and other conduct by his supervisor - whether Appellant's injury arose out of, or in the course of, Appellant's employment - whether Appellant's employment was the major significant contributing factor to Appellant's injury - whether Appellant's injury excluded under s 32(5)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - Appellant's injury arose out of, or in the course of, employment and Appellant's employment was the major significant contributing factor to Appellant's injury - Appellant's injury did not arise out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way in connection with the Appellant's employment - review decision of Respondent set aside and another decision substituted, namely, that the Appellant suffered an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - parties to be heard as to costs
LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 14 and s 14D

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 41

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 11, s 32, s 132A, s 179 and s 558

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2019, s 34
CASES:

Allwood vWorkers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 088

Armagas Lt v Mundogas SA (The Ocean Frost) [1985] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1

Camden v McKenzie [2007] QCA 136; (2008) 1 Qd R 39

Campbell v Campbell [2015] NSWSC 784; (2015) 16 ASTLR 36

Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031

Crime & Misconduct Commission v Assistant Commissioner JP Swindells & Ors [2009] QSC 409

Deanne Maree King v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 134

Continue reading Townsend v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Townsend v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 105
Case
[2022] QIRC 105
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Townsend v Workers' Compensation Regulator involved a dispute regarding the entitlement to workers' compensation. The Appellant, Mr Townsend, who was employed as a Senior Support Worker, then Operational Manager and finally Director of a company providing support services to individuals with disabilities, suffered a psychiatric injury. Mr Townsend claimed that his injury was caused by verbal abuse and other conduct by his supervisor. The primary issues before the court were whether Mr Townsend's injury arose out of or in the course of his employment, whether his employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury, and whether the injury was excluded under section 32(5)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The court was required to determine whether the injury arose out of or in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way in connection with Mr Townsend's employment.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the Appellant's injury arose out of or in the course of his employment, and that his employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury. The court also concluded that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way in connection with the Appellant's employment. Therefore, the review decision of the Respondent was set aside, and another decision was substituted, namely, that the Appellant suffered an injury within the meaning of section 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The parties were to be heard as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 558(1)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003:

(a) the review decision of the Respondent is set aside; and

(b) another decision is substituted, namely, that the Appellant suffered an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

2. Pursuant to r 41(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011:

(a) the parties are to exchange and file written submissions on the costs of the hearing (of no more than two (2) pages, 12‑point font size, line and a‑half spacing with numbered paragraphs and pages) by 4.00 pm on Friday, 8 April 2022; and

(b) unless otherwise ordered, the decision on costs be determined on the papers.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The position description for the position of Director, in terms of the purpose of that position provided:The primary purpose of this position is to provide high quality management and leadership for the day-to-day operations and future direction of the organisation. Active participation in disability and business networks is required for this position. The Director is also responsible for ensuring that the organisation operates in a smooth and progressive manner, in conjunction with the administration staff, as well as people being supported, family members or significant other people, and external advisors. The Director operates as a self-directed member of the Lifestyle Supports Pty Ltd team and has regular contact with the people being supported, family members, or significant other people who have an interest in supporting people with complex support requirements.The Director will ensure that Lifestyle Supports follows all laws and legislation pertaining to the Social Care sector.[48]Are the six particularised allegations proven on the evidence and, if so, do they amount to reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way in connection with Mr Townsend's employment?[48] Exhibit 6.The October 2016 allegation Mr Townsend contends that in October 2016 he raised with Mr Suleiman the fact that some things at LS were not being done according to legislation, in response to which Mr Suleiman became angry and told Mr Townsend in an aggressive way that it was his (Mr Suleiman's) business and that he would run it the way he wanted. The Regulator submitted that the exchange between Mr Townsend and Mr Suleiman - in respect of which there were no other persons present and no witnesses able to support either as to the different version of events - involved the manner in which the employer conducted its business.[49] The Regulator also submitted that the purported correction by Mr Townsend as to that matter, because it was not an ordinary everyday activity of Mr Townsend, amounted to management action.[50] The Regulator submitted this was reasonable management action because of Mr Townsend's evidence[51] that, at that point in time, his relationship with Mr Suleiman was one of give and take.[52] [49] The Regulator's submissions, paras. 16(i) and 18(i).[50] T 5-10, l 40 to T 5-11, l 1.[51] T 1-24, ll 3-6.[52] The Regulator's submissions, para. 18(i). Mr Townsend submitted that he raised with Mr Suleiman the fact that some things at LS were not being done according to legislation to which Mr Suleiman became angry and told Mr Townsend, in an aggressive way, that it was his business and that he would run it the way he wanted. Mr Townsend further submitted that Mr Suleiman did not deny that allegation but instead (in his evidence-in-chief) said: 'Well it is my business' and that evidence should be accepted.[53][53] Mr Townsend's written submissions filed on 5 March 2021 ('Mr Townsend's submissions'). para. 17. Mr Townsend's evidence was that when he first met Mr Suleiman at the end of September 2016 or the beginning of October 2016, his relationship with Mr Suleiman was pretty positive because they were discussing the future of LS. However, Mr Townsend described that that relationship changed over time, because, from Mr Townsend's point of view, Mr Suleiman could not get quite an idea of what direction he (Mr Suleiman) wanted to take and that Mr Suleiman started to argue a fair bit with the Department of Child Safety over things Mr Suleiman wanted to do in his own business.[54] [54] T 1-12, ll 31-42.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.