Truffet v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2020] ICQ 13

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Truffet v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2020] ICQ 013

PARTIES:

STUART DAVID TRUFFET

(applicant)

v
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR

(respondent)

FILE NO:

C/2020/2

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

22 June 2020

HEARING DATE:

28 April 2020

MEMBER:

Martin J, President

ORDER:

The application to appeal is struck out.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant lodged an application for compensation with WorkCover for stress-related ill health – where the applicant’s claim for compensation was rejected – where the applicant applied for a review of the decision by the respondent – where the respondent confirmed WorkCover’s decision – where the applicant unsuccessfully appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission against the decision of the respondent – where the applicant submits that the Commissioner erred in law by (a) making certain comments at a mention about the matters which would be considered at the hearing, (b) awarding costs against the applicant, and (c) arriving at certain conclusions of fact and law – whether the applicant has demonstrated error of law

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant’s application to appeal was filed 16 days out of time – where the applicant explains that the delay was due to the fact that the decision of the Industrial Commissioner being delivered on 20 December 2019 and he was unable to access legal and other assistance for much of the 21 day appeal period – where the applicant states that he was exchanging “without prejudice” correspondence with the respondent up to the time at which he filed his application to appeal – where the applicant argues that the respondent has not identified any prejudice – where the applicant argues that it is in the public interest for the appeal to be heard – whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant applied to appeal on a question of fact – where the applicant submits that it is in the public interest for leave to be granted because (a) the applicant claims to be aware that another employee has been treated in a similar way, and (b) the applicant submits that his reputation has been destroyed by an online newspaper article – whether it is in the public interest that leave should be granted

Industrial Relations Act 2016, ss 557, 565
Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 139
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

CASES:

A1 Rubber (Aust) Pty Ltd v Chapman (Office of Industrial Relations) [2019] ICQ 16, cited
Hardy v Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 27, applied
Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Langerak [2020] ICQ 002, applied

APPEARANCES:

The applicant appeared in person

S P Gray instructed directly by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator

Dr Truffet commenced employment at Esri Australia (Esri) as a…

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 Truffet v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Truffet v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] ICQ 13
Case: [2020] ICQ 13
Decision Date: 22 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Truffet, sought compensation from WorkCover for stress-related ill health. When this was rejected, Truffet applied for a review by the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which upheld the decision. Truffet appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, which was unsuccessful. Truffet then applied to the Industrial Court to appeal on questions of law and fact. Truffet argued that the Industrial Commissioner had erred in law and that it was in the public interest for the appeal to proceed. The Workers' Compensation Regulator opposed the application on the grounds that it was filed out of time and that there was no demonstrated public interest.

The Industrial Court was required to determine whether Truffet had demonstrated an error of law and whether the application should be allowed despite being filed out of time. The court also had to assess whether there was sufficient public interest to grant leave to appeal. The key legal issues were whether the Industrial Commissioner's comments, the awarding of costs, and the factual and legal conclusions were erroneous, and whether the delay in filing the appeal was justified.

The Court noted that Truffet's application to appeal was filed 16 days out of time. Truffet explained that the delay was due to the late delivery of the decision and difficulties in accessing legal assistance. The Court considered whether Truffet had demonstrated that the Regulator was not prejudiced by the delay and whether it was in the public interest for the appeal to proceed. The Court found that Truffet had not shown that the Regulator was not prejudiced and that the public interest did not warrant an extension of time. The Court also found that Truffet had not demonstrated a clear error of law that warranted an appeal.

The Industrial Court struck out the application to appeal. The Court found that the appeal was untimely and that there was no demonstrated error of law. The Court also held that there was insufficient public interest to justify an extension of time or leave to appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Industrial Commissioner was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to appeal is struck out.

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:	Truffet v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2020] ICQ 013
PARTIES:	STUART DAVID TRUFFET (applicant) v WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR (respondent)
FILE NO:	C/2020/2
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	22 June 2020
HEARING DATE:	28 April 2020
MEMBER:	Martin J, President
ORDER:	The application to appeal is struck out.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant lodged an application for compensation with WorkCover for stress-related ill health – where the applicant’s claim for compensation was rejected – where the applicant applied for a review of the decision by the respondent – where the respondent confirmed WorkCover’s decision – where the applicant unsuccessfully appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission against the decision of the respondent – where the applicant submits that the Commissioner erred in law by (a) making certain comments at a mention about the matters which would be considered at the hearing, (b) awarding costs against the applicant, and (c) arriving at certain conclusions of fact and law – whether the applicant has demonstrated error of law INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant’s application to appeal was filed 16 days out of time – where the applicant explains that the delay was due to the fact that the decision of the Industrial Commissioner being delivered on 20 December 2019 and he was unable to access legal and other assistance for much of the 21 day appeal period – where the applicant states that he was exchanging “without prejudice” correspondence with the respondent up to the time at which he filed his application to appeal – where the applicant argues that the respondent has not identified any prejudice – where the applicant argues that it is in the public interest for the appeal to be heard – whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant applied to appeal on a question of fact – where the applicant submits that it is in the public interest for leave to be granted because (a) the applicant claims to be aware that another employee has been treated in a similar way, and (b) the applicant submits that his reputation has been destroyed by an online newspaper article – whether it is in the public interest that leave should be granted Industrial Relations Act 2016, ss 557, 565 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 139 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003
CASES:	A1 Rubber (Aust) Pty Ltd v Chapman (Office of Industrial Relations) [2019] ICQ 16, cited Hardy v Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 27, applied Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Langerak [2020] ICQ 002, applied
APPEARANCES:	The applicant appeared in person S P Gray instructed directly by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator