Wilton v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 279

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Wilton v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 279
PARTIES:	Kevin David Wilton (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2022/115
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	20 October 2025
HEARING DATES:	11 April 2023 12 April 2023 13 April 2023
DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:	Respondent's written submissions filed on 26 June 2023 Appellant's written submissions in response filed on 22 August 2023 Respondent's written submissions in reply filed on 14 September 2023
MEMBER:	Hartigan DP
HEARD AT:	Mackay
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. An application for costs, if any, should be made by the Workers' Compensation Regulator within 28 days.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – EMPLOYMENT RELATED INJURY, DISABILITY OR DISEASE – EMPLOYMENT SUBSTANTIAL OR SIGNIFICANT FACTOR – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant, a worker, appeals a decision of the respondent to confirm a decision of a self-insurer to reject the worker's claim for compensation – where the appellant was employed as a coal mine worker – where the appellant suffered a psychiatric or psychological injury which arose out of, or in the course of, his employment – where the respondent conceded that the appellant was a worker who suffered an injury and his employment was the significant contributing factor to the injury – whether the injury is excluded pursuant to s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – whether the appellant's injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way – the management action was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way – the appeal is dismissed
LEGISLATION:	Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld), s 6, s 7, s 18, s 19, s 29, s 30, s 31, s 33, s 34, s 37, s 39 Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2017 (Qld), s 42 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 11, s 32
CASES:	Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 9 Gilmour v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 22 Kuenstner v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 83
APPEARANCES:	Mr M.E. Holmes instructed by Taylors Solicitors for the Appellant Mr S.A. McLeod KC instructed directly by the Respondent

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

The Appellant, Mr Kevin Wilton, appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Regulator') confirming the decision of BHP Group Limited ('BHP') to reject Mr Wilton's application for compensation.
BHP rejected Mr Wilton's claim for compensation on the basis that Mr Wilton did not sustain an "injury" in accordance with s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('WCR Act'). Mr Wilton seeks to appeal this decision.
Mr Wilton claims that he was injured over the course of several meetings in a three-day period and that those meetings constituted "management action" and that management action was not reasonable nor taken in a reasonable way. Consequently,
Mr Wilton contends that he suffered a psychological injury whilst employed by BHP Coal Proprietary Limited…

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 Wilton v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Wilton v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 279
Case: [2025] QIRC 279
Decision Date: 20 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wilton has appealed against the Workers' Compensation Regulator's decision to confirm a self-insurer's rejection of his claim for compensation. Wilton, a coal mine worker, suffered a psychiatric injury that he argues arose out of his employment. The Regulator conceded that Wilton was a worker who suffered an injury and that his employment was a significant contributing factor. The key issue before the court was whether the injury was excluded by s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, which excludes injuries arising from reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. The court had to determine if the management action in this case was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way.

The court found that the management action was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way. Wilton had entered into a temporary arrangement with his supervisor not to perform certain duties, but this was not binding and did not alter the employment agreement's terms. When Wilton failed to comply with a direction from another supervisor, the subsequent management action was reasonable. The court held that the stressor for Wilton's injury was excluded under s 32(5) of the WCR Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

In dismissing the appeal, the court held that Wilton had not proven that the management action was unreasonable or not taken in a reasonable way. As a result, the injury was excluded by s 32(5) of the WCR Act. The court also noted that Wilton's perception of the temporary arrangement with his supervisor affected his view of the management action, but this did not change the reasonableness of the actions taken. The appeal was dismissed, and the Workers' Compensation Regulator could apply for costs within 28 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. An application for costs, if any, should be made by the Workers' Compensation Regulator within 28 days.

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

Accordingly, Mr Wilton has not discharged the onus that rests on him to establish that the management action was not reasonable nor taken in a reasonable way. It follows that the injury is excluded by operation of s 32(5) of the WCR Act. Conclusion It is evident that Mr Wilton perceives that he was treated unfairly because he was directed to do a task he had previously requested his supervisor to temporarily excuse him from performing. At the time the agreement was made between Mr Dargin and Mr Wilton it was operationally convenient for Mr Dargin to agree to Mr Wilton's request that he not perform training and assessing duties. However, the temporary arrangement entered into between Mr Dargin and Mr Wilton did not exist in a binding form so as to disturb the terms of the EA, including cl 4.1, or further to usurp the operational needs of the mine. Mr Wilton's perception as to the effect of the agreement between he and Mr Dargin, specifically that it enabled him to refuse to comply with Ms Taylor's request and subsequent direction, tainted his view of the management action that was taken in the meetings. The management action taken as a result of Mr Wilton's failure to comply with a direction, including during the meetings on 26, 27 and 28 May, was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way. In these circumstances, the nominated stressor for the injury is excluded by operation of s 32(5) of the WCR Act. The appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.