UAM Pty Ltd v the Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2015] QIRC 209

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	UAM Pty Ltd v the Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] QIRC 209
PARTIES:	UAM Pty Ltd (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2013/411
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	4 December 2015
HEARING DATES:	10, 11 and 12 June 2014 and 5 July 2015 Respondent's submissions 24 June 2015 Appellant's submissions 15 July 2015 Respondent's submissions in reply 30 July 2015
MEMBER:	Deputy President O'Connor
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is upheld; 2. The decision of the Respondent dated 26 November 2013 be set-aside; 3. The claim for compensation by Matthew King is not one for acceptance; and 4. The Respondent is to pay the Appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF REGULATOR – Where the Regulator accepted the worker's application for compensation – Where the employer appealed this decision – Whether the worker sustained an injury within the meaning of that term in s 32 of the Act – Whether the worker was a credible witness – Appeal allowed.
CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32 Brandi v Mingot (1976) 12 ALR 551 Goldsmith v Sanderlands (2002) 76 ALJR 1024 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. Manly Council v Byrne & Anor [2004] NSWCA 123, [51] Nicholls v The Queen (2005) 219 CLR 196 Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1
APPEARANCES:	Mr J.S. Miles, Counsel instructed by Hentys Lawyers for the Appellant. Mr R.J. Clutterbuck, Counsel directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator.

Decision

Mr Mathew King was employed as an Asset Inspector by UAM Pty Ltd ("the Appellant") and was based in Toowoomba from July 2008 to February 2013.

On or about 6 October 2012, Mr King claims to have suffered a workplace injury to his back as a consequence of "leaning forward and bending down to measure the girth of the power pole"[1].
[1] T2-43 Ll.10-11.
By a letter dated 26 November 2013, the Review Unit of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ("the Regulator") confirmed WorkCover's decision to accept Mr King's application for compensation.
This is an appeal made under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ("the Act") against the decision of the Regulator.
The Appellant contends that the Mr King's injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment.

Statutory Provisions and Onus of Proof

The appeal has to be decided by reference to s 32 of the Act which, at the time material to the Appellant's application for compensation, relevantly provided:

"32 Meaning of injury

(1)An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury.

…
(3) Injury includes the following -
(a) a disease …
(b)an aggravation of the following, if the aggravation arises out of, or in the course of, employment and the employment…

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 UAM Pty Ltd v the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: UAM Pty Ltd v the Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] QIRC 209
Case: [2015] QIRC 209
Decision Date: 4 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of UAM Pty Ltd v the Workers' Compensation Regulator, the primary issue before the court was the eligibility of Matthew King's claim for workers' compensation following an incident at work. The Workers' Compensation Regulator had previously rejected the claim, and UAM Pty Ltd, King's employer, sought to appeal this decision. The case was heard in the Industrial Commission of Queensland, and subsequently, the appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the Workers' Compensation Regulator's decision was correct and whether Matthew King's claim for compensation should have been accepted. The court needed to consider the relevant statutory provisions, specifically the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), and whether the decision-maker applied the correct principles in reaching their conclusion. The court also needed to determine whether the Regulator had acted within their jurisdiction and whether there were any errors in the application of the law or facts.

The court held that the appeal should be upheld and that the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator was incorrect. The court found that the Regulator had failed to properly consider all the evidence and had not applied the correct legal principles in determining the claim. The court further held that Matthew King's claim for compensation was not one for acceptance, meaning that the employer should not have been required to accept the claim for it to proceed. The court also ordered that the Workers' Compensation Regulator pay the Appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal. This decision highlights the importance of proper consideration of evidence and application of the law in workers' compensation claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is upheld;

2. The decision of the Respondent dated 26 November 2013 be set-aside;

3. The claim for compensation by Matthew King is not one for acceptance; and

4. The Respondent is to pay the Appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal 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.