van der Berg v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2015] QIRC 161

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	van der Berg v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 161
PARTIES:	van der Berg, Petrus (Applicant) v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2015/75
PROCEEDING:	Application for an extension of time
DELIVERED ON:	2 September 2015
HEARING DATES:	22 May 2015 23 July 2015
MEMBER:	Deputy President O'Connor
ORDERS :	1. Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME - Where the Appeals Unit of the Workers' Compensation Regulator confirmed WorkCover's decision to reject the worker's application for compensation - Where the worker was required under s 550 to lodge any appeal of that decision to the QIRC within 20 business days - Where the worker lodged the appeal 241 days out of time - whether the QIRC is vested with the power to waive the time limit in s 550(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - Application refused.
CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, ss 542, 549, 550, 557 Australian Meat Holdings v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 231 Blackwood v Pearce [2015] ICQ 12 Carmody v WorkCover Queensland (1998) 157 QGIG 119 Cloncurry Shire Council v Workers' Compensation Regulatory Authority & Anor [2006] QSC 362 Eureka Street Pty Ltd v Q-Comp (2007) 184 QGIG 102 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Salenger [1988] 81 ALR 25 Hansen v Q-Comp C/201/16 McQuade and Hayes v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QIC 56; (2000) 165 QGIG 126 Paul Taylor v Q-Comp (WC/2008/26) Proctor v Jetway Aviation Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 166 Q-Comp v Deng (C/201/56) - Decision < v Sargeant (C/2012/31) - Decision < Johnson v Discovery Bay Developments Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (1996) 151 QGIG 1010, 1011 Ricky Smith v Q-Comp (WC/2012/19). Savage v Woolworths (Queensland) Pty Ltd (1999) 162 QGIG 353 Steven Pearce v Q-COMP (C/2010/64) - Decision <
APPEARANCES:	Mrs C. van der Berg, representative of the Applicant. Mr J.W. Merrell, Counsel directly instructed by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator).

Decision

Petrus van der Berg (Applicant) was employed as a boilermaker by Key Solutions Group Equipment Holdings Pty Ltd in Mackay.
On 22 July 2013, the Applicant lodged an application for workers' compensation with WorkCover Queensland (WorkCover) for bilateral contact dermatitis as a result of the Applicant's exposure to chemicals in the workplace.
WorkCover accepted the application for compensation on 16 August 2013.

The employer lodged an application for review with Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Regulator) on 30 August 2013.
On 3 October 2013, the Regulator set aside the decision of WorkCover and instructed it to obtain additional information and make a fresh decision.
WorkCover rejected the application for compensation on the basis that the Applicant had not suffered an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Act.
On 23 January 2014, the Applicant applied to the Regulator to review the second WorkCover decision and the Regulator confirmed WorkCover's decision to reject the Applicant's claim for compensation.
On 25 January 2015, the Applicant applied for a waiver of…

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 van der Berg v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regula... 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: [2015] QIRC 161
Decision Date: 2 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the worker, van der Berg, against the decision of the Appeals Unit of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which upheld WorkCover's rejection of van der Berg's application for compensation. Van der Berg was required to lodge an appeal within 20 business days under section 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, but instead lodged the appeal 241 days after the deadline. The central legal issue before the court was whether the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) had the authority to waive the time limit specified in section 550(1)(a) of the Act.

The court examined the provisions of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and found that section 550(1)(a) does not explicitly provide for the QIRC to waive the time limit for lodging an appeal. The court noted that the Act sets out a clear and strict time frame for lodging appeals, and there was no statutory provision that would allow the QIRC to extend this time. Given the statutory nature of the time limit and the absence of any express power to waive it, the court concluded that the QIRC lacked the authority to waive the time limit in this instance.

As a result, the court refused van der Berg's application for an extension of time. The court's decision was based on the clear statutory requirements and the lack of any authority for the QIRC to waive the specified time limit. Consequently, van der Berg's appeal was dismissed due to the late filing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application refused.

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.