Wilson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2014] QIRC 97

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Wilson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation

Regulator) [2014] QIRC 097

PARTIES:

Wilson, Robert

(Appellant)

Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation
Regulator)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2013/290

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against a decision of Simon Blackwood

(Workers' Compensation Regulator)

DELIVERED ON:

30 May 2014

HEARING DATES:

7 and 8 April 2014

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Fisher

ORDERS:

1.	The appeal is dismissed.
2.	The decision of the Regulator is confirmed.
3.	Costs are reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - Injury to both shoulders at picnic - Where the employment relationship involves family - Whether injury arose out of or in the course of employment - Whether employer induced or encouraged appellant to engage in the activity - Whether employer induced or encouraged appellant to engage in water safety role - Whether employer induced or encouraged appellant to ride on an inflatable biscuit - Not found employer induced or encouraged appellant to engage in the activity - Appellant unable to establish injury satisfies elements of s 32(1) of Act - Determined injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment - Appeal dismissed.

CASES:

Worker Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003,

s 32(1)
Comcare v PVYW [2013] HCA 41
Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd [1992] HCA
21; (1992) 173 CLR 473
Pioneer Studios Pty Ltd v Hills [2012] NSWCA 324

APPEARANCES:

Ms S. Anderson, Counsel instructed by Shine
Lawyers for the Appellant.
Mr C. Clark, Counsel directly instructed by Simon
Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the
Respondent.

Decision

[1]      Robert Wilson was living in Brisbane in 2012 when he was asked by his nephew, Richard Wilson, whether he would be interested in working for his company, Wilson Survey Group (Qld) Pty Ltd (the Wilson Survey Group), which is located in Emerald. Robert Wilson accepted the offer and commenced employment on 19 February 2012.
[2]      On Good Friday 6 April 2012, Robert Wilson and his fiancée, Liying Wang, joined Richard Wilson, his wife, children and mother, and Gail Kruger, her husband, children and parents in a picnic and water sports at the Fairbairn Dam. Ms Kruger is the Office Administrator for the Wilson Survey Group. Robert Wilson claims to have sustained an injury to both shoulders while riding an inflatable "biscuit" attached to Richard Wilson's speedboat.
[3]      The key issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the injury arose out of or in the course of employment.
The Nature of the Employment
[4]      Nothing was put in writing at the commencement of Robert Wilson's employment. The absence of any such documentation has led to some differences of opinion as to Robert Wilson's position and employment conditions.
[5]      Robert Wilson claims to have been employed as a Business Development Officer on a salary of $80,000 per annum. He said his duties were to be Richard Wilson's off-sider; to help gather information at the coal seam gas processing plant; to examine the business and recommend improvements as well as to get and keep Richard Wilson fit.
[6]      Richard…

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 Wilson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) 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: [2014] QIRC 97
Decision Date: 30 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wilson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) involved the appellant, an employee of the respondent, who sustained injuries to both shoulders during a picnic organised by the employer. The dispute centred around whether the injuries arose out of or in the course of the appellant's employment and whether the employer had induced or encouraged the activities that led to the injuries. This case was heard and determined by the relevant court of appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's injuries met the criteria outlined in section 32(1) of the relevant workers' compensation legislation. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain whether the injuries arose out of or in the course of employment, taking into account the familial nature of the employment relationship and the specific circumstances surrounding the incident. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the employer had induced or encouraged the appellant to engage in the activities that led to the injuries, including whether the employer had induced or encouraged the appellant to engage in a water safety role or ride on an inflatable biscuit.

In its judgment, the court found that the employer had not induced or encouraged the appellant to engage in the activities that led to the injuries. The court concluded that the appellant was unable to establish that his injuries satisfied the elements of section 32(1) of the Act. The court determined that the injuries did not arise out of or in the course of the appellant's employment and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal. The decision of the Regulator was confirmed, and costs were reserved.

The court's final orders included dismissing the appeal, confirming the decision of the Regulator, and reserving costs. This outcome upheld the Regulator's determination that the appellant's injuries did not qualify for workers' compensation under the relevant legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

The decision of the Regulator is confirmed.

Costs are reserved.

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.