Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2020] QIRC 27

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 027

PARTIES:

Maureen Tuesley
(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

CASE NO:
WC/2018/50

PROCEEDING:
Application to withdraw deemed admissions

DELIVERED ON:
20 February 2020

HEARING DATE:
11 December 2019

MEMBER:
HEARD AT:

HARTIGAN IC

Brisbane

ORDER:

1.     Application dismissed.

2.     The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of this application to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS:
WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PRACTICE UNDER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS RULES – Application to withdraw deemed admissions – application made following formal admission of facts – lengthy delay – Respondent prejudiced – Application dismissed.

LEGISLATION:
Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 49

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 553

CASESHanson Construction Material P/L v Davey & Anor [2010] QCA 246
Ridolfi v Rigato Farms Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 455

Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd & Ors [2000] QCA 178

APPEARANCES: Mr A. Stobie of counsel for the Appellant.

Mr P.B. O'Neill of counsel for the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision
Introduction

[1]Ms Maureen Tuesley, seeks the leave of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to withdraw deemed admissions made during the course of the proceedings.[1] Ms Tuesley appeals a decision of the Regulator upholding a decision of WorkCover Queensland to reject Ms Tuesley's Notice of Claim for Damages. The application[2] to withdraw deemed admissions was made by Ms Tuesley after the hearing of the appeal had commenced[3] and approximately eight months after the Notice to Admit Facts had been served by the Regulator.[4]
[1] WC/2018/50.
[2] The application to withdraw deemed admissions was filed on 8 October 2019.
[3] The hearing commenced on 18 February 2019 and was adjourned to a date to be fixed.
[4] On 31 January 2019.
[2]Ms Tuesley applies only to withdraw the deemed admissions with respect to paragraph 34 of the Notice to Admit. Ms Tuesley does not seek to withdraw the deemed admissions made to paragraphs 1 to 33 of the Notice to Admit.
[3]During the hearing of the application, the Regulator confirmed that it no longer pressed paragraph 34(a) of the Notice to Admit. Accordingly, I will only consider the application in so far as it relates to paragraphs 34(b) to 34(h).[5]
[5] Any following reference to "paragraph 34" is a reference to paragraph 34(b) to 34(h).
[4]The application arises because Ms Tuesley did not serve a notice disputing the facts contained in the Notice to Admit within 14 days[6] and consequently those facts within the Notice to Admit were deemed to be admitted.[7] Following that, and on the first day of hearing, Ms Tuesley's representative formally admitted the facts contained in the Notice to Admit.
[6] Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 49(1).
[7] Ibid r 49(2).

[5]The Regulator objects to the application to withdraw the admissions.
Principles relevant to the exercise of the discretion
[6]A party may, with leave of the Commission, withdraw a deemed admission.[8] The…

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 Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 27
Case: [2020] QIRC 27
Decision Date: 20 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the applicant sought to withdraw admissions made in a workers' compensation claim under the Industrial Tribunals Rules. The dispute involved the applicant's entitlement to compensation and arose in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The respondent, Workers' Compensation Regulator, argued that the application was made after a significant delay, which prejudiced their ability to respond adequately to the claim.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's application to withdraw deemed admissions should be granted. The court had to consider the procedural rules governing such applications and the impact of the delay on the respondent. The tribunal examined whether the delay prejudiced the respondent's ability to prepare and present their case, as well as the merits of the applicant's reasons for the delay.

The tribunal found that the application to withdraw the admissions was made after an unreasonable delay, which prejudiced the respondent. The tribunal held that the delay not only disrupted the respondent's case preparation but also undermined the integrity of the tribunal process. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application, highlighting that such delays are detrimental to the fair administration of justice. The tribunal also ordered that the applicant bear the costs of the application, which were to be agreed upon by the parties or determined through a further application if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed.

2. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of this application to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be the subject of 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

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 027
PARTIES:	Maureen Tuesley (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2018/50
PROCEEDING:	Application to withdraw deemed admissions
DELIVERED ON:	20 February 2020
HEARING DATE:	11 December 2019
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	HARTIGAN IC Brisbane
ORDER:	1. Application dismissed. 2. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of this application to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PRACTICE UNDER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS RULES – Application to withdraw deemed admissions – application made following formal admission of facts – lengthy delay – Respondent prejudiced – Application dismissed.
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 49 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 553