WorkCover Corporation of South Australia v Moore-McQuillan

[2016] SASC 191

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil)

WORKCOVER CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v MOORE-MCQUILLAN

[2016] SASC 191

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Blue

16 December 2016

PROCEDURE - MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS - VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND PROCEEDINGS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION

Application for orders under section 39 of Supreme Court Act 1935 prohibiting institution of proceedings without prior permission and staying existing proceedings.

The defendant instituted various proceedings between 1996 and 2012 in State courts and tribunals. The plaintiff contends that most of those proceedings were instituted without reasonable ground and in three cases for an ulterior purpose.

There are three extant proceedings. They are a 2012 application in the Workers Compensation Tribunal under section 88H of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 to set aside a 2001 judgment of Deputy President McCouaig; a 2012 application in the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal to set aside decisions of Review Officer Pope and Deputy Presidents Parsons and McCusker made between 1995 and 2003; and a 2012 appeal in the Workers Compensation Tribunal against a 2012 judgment of Olsson AJ.

Held (making prohibition and stay orders):

1. The question whether a body is a “prescribed court” within the meaning of section 39 is to be determined in accordance with the definition of a prescribed court at the time of the determination rather than at the time of the underlying proceeding (at [340]-[342]).

2. The Supreme Court, District Court, Industrial Relations Court, Workers Compensation Tribunal and Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal are prescribed courts within the meaning of section 39 (at [338]-[339], [347]).

3. The applications made to judicial officers that they disqualify themselves; the application for a standstill of proceedings on medical grounds; the application for a stay of judgment pending appeal; the application for payment of costs for a lawyer; and the application for exclusion of evidence during trial do not comprise proceedings within the meaning of section 39 (at [367]-[376]).

4. The remaining matters, being first instance matters, appellate matters and applications to set aside or reopen previous decisions, all comprise proceedings within the meaning of section 39 (at [377]-[387]).

5. The defendant instituted 63 proceedings without reasonable ground (at [388]-[972]).

6. The plaintiff has not proved that the defendant instituted 26 proceedings without reasonable ground (at [388]-[972]).

7. The defendant persistently instituted vexatious proceedings (at [994]).

8. The discretion should be exercised to prohibit the defendant from instituting further proceedings in a prescribed court without the permission of the Supreme Court (at [1000]).

9. The defendant’s application in the Workers Compensation Tribunal to set aside the March 2001 judgment of Deputy President McCouaig was instituted without reasonable ground and should be stayed (at [1010]).

10. The defendant’s application in the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal to set aside Review Officer Pope’s October 1995 decision and subsequent decisions of Deputy Presidents Parsons and McCusker was instituted without reasonable ground and should be stayed (at [1021]).

11. The defendant’s appeal against the 2012 judgment of Olsson AJ was instituted as to some orders without reasonable ground and should be stayed to that extent but not otherwise (at [1024]-[1034]).

12. Orders made prohibiting the defendant instituting proceedings in a prescribed court without the permission of the Court and staying existing proceedings except the appeal from the judgment of Olsson AJ in respect of identified orders (at [1035]-[1036]).

Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) s 16; Co-operatives National Law (South Australia) Act 2013 (SA) s 73; Commonwealth of Australia Constitution s 71; Criminal Law (Forensic Procedure) Act 1998 (SA) s 47; District Court Act 1991 (SA) s 39; Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) s 40, s 43, s 45, sch 1; Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s 221A, s 221C; Industrial and Employee Relations Act 1994 (SA) s 14; Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1972 (SA) s 15, s 31; Limitation of Actions Act (SA) s 35; Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972 s 3, s 4; Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 34, s 42; Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) sch 9; Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 76A; Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 5, s 30C, s 39, s 50; WorkCover Corporation Act 1994 (SA) s 4; Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Dispute Resolution) Amendment Act 1996 (SA) s 6; Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Act 1995 (SA) s 33, s 34; Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) s 3, s 4, s 7, s 30, s 30A, s 32, s 35, s 36, s 38, s 42A, s 42B, s 43, s 47, s 86, s 87A, s 88DA, s 88H, s 88I, s 95, s 97, s 100, s 110, s 120, s 122, referred to.
The Corporation (WB and LT Ashby and Co) v Baker (Judgment A2/1991 of the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal; House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178; Lemura & Others v Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation [1997] SASC 6173; Monroe Australia Pty Ltd v Laszczak (Unreported Supreme Court of South Australia Full Court No. SCGRG 93/1075 Judgment No 4278 (26 November 1993)), discussed.
Andrew Garrett Wine Resorts Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] SASC 89; Attorney-General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481; Australian Postal Commission v Dao (No 2) (1986) 6 NSWLR 497; Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration and Mulitcultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 138 FCR 353; Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245; Brogden v Attorney-General [2001] NZAR 809; Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; Campbell v Employers Mutual Ltd (2011) 110 SASR 57; Campbell v Employers Mutual Ltd (2011) 110 SASR 57; Doulaveras v Daher (2009) 253 ALR 627; Fricker v Van Grutten [1896] 2 Ch 649; Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd & Appleton v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330; Hunters Hill Municipal Council v Pedler [1976] 1 NSWLR 478; In re Becker [1975] 1 WLR 842; Kronen v Commercial Motor Industries Pty Ltd (2016) 124 SASR 427; McDonald v South Australia [2013] SASC 31; Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v Kowalski (2004) 236 LSJS 101; New South Wales Bar Association v Muirhead (1988) 14 NSWLR 173; Peet v Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation (1996) 66 SASR 474; Shell Company of Australia Ltd v The Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1930) 44 CLR 530; Southern Resources Ltd v Residues Treatment and Trading Co Ltd (1990) 56 SASR 455; R v Gallagher; Ex parte Aberdare Collieries Pty Ltd (1963) 37 ALJR 40; R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254; R v Lobban (2000) 77 SASR 24; R v Ridgeway (1998) 72 SASR 73; Ramsey v Skyring (1999) 164 ALR 378; Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2002) 209 CLR 372; Richmond v Branson & Son [1914] 1 Ch 968; Rola Co (Australia) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1944) 69 CLR 185; Trinne v WorkCover/MMI Workers Compensation (SA) Pty Ltd (Rexco Pty Ltd) [1999] SAWCT 57; Trust Company of Australia Ltd v Skiwing Pty Ltd (2006) 66 NSWLR 77; Vanderdoes v WorkCover Corporation/VACC Insurance WorkSafe (SEANCO Pty Ltd) [1998] SAWCT 68; Visic v Proude (2013) 116 SASR 404; Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v JW Alexander Ltd (1918) 25 CLR 434; Westwill Pty Ltd & Ors v Byrt & Ors [2010] SASC 99; WorkCover Corporation v Sheriff (unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia Full Court, 1 October 1996), considered.

WORKCOVER CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v MOORE-MCQUILLAN
[2016] SASC 191

Civil:

BLUE J:

1. This is an action by WorkCover Corporation of South Australia seeking orders pursuant to section 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) (the Act) that Markham Moore-McQuillan be prohibited from instituting proceedings in a prescribed court without the permission of the Supreme Court and that existing proceedings in prescribed courts be stayed.

2. WorkCover contends that between 1996 and 2012 Mr Moore-McQuillan persistently instituted numerous proceedings in prescribed courts which were vexatious because they were instituted without reasonable ground or, in three cases, for an ulterior purpose. Mr Moore-McQuillan denies that any of these matters were vexatious.

3. WorkCover contends that in 2012 Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted three proceedings which have not yet been heard, were instituted without reasonable ground and should be stayed. Mr Moore-McQuillan denies that any of these matters were vexatious.

   Background

4. In 1990, Wolfgang and Kathleen Seidel were carrying on a dive shop and diving instruction business at O’Halloran Hill trading as Wolf Air and Dive Shop (Wolf Dive). The dive shop was open from 10 am to 5 pm Monday to Friday and from 7.30 am to 1.30 pm and from 6 pm to 7 pm Saturday and Sunday.

5. In March 1990, Wolf Dive employed Mr Moore-McQuillan to provide diving instruction to students undertaking beginner and advanced diving courses and to work in the dive shop when Mr and Mrs Seidel were absent. Mr Moore-McQuillan held qualifications as a dive instructor.

6. Mr Moore-McQuillan was paid two separate components of remuneration:

   (a)for diving instruction: between $70 and $90 per student depending on the course with payment being made after completion of the course and receipt of full payment from the student;

   (b)    for work in the dive shop: $10 per hour.

7. Mr Moore-McQuillan was permitted to live upstairs on the shop premises without charge for rent and electricity (free lodging). Mrs Seidel gave evidence before Review Officer Lovering in 1991 that the Seidels had allowed Mr Moore-McQuillan to stay on the premises out of the goodness of their hearts. It is not clear what evidence Mr Moore-McQuillan gave before Review Officer Lovering as to the basis of the free lodging but he later contended that it was provided as a term of his employment and not gratuitously.

8. On 9 September 1990 at about 7 am, another employee, Mr Thomas, attended to work in the dive shop. He knocked on the door and Mr Moore-McQuillan walked down the stairs to answer the door. In so doing, Mr Moore-McQuillan tripped on the stairs and injured his left knee and three left toes.

9. Mr Moore-McQuillan continued working until 12 September 1990, when he was told by Mr Seidel to take three weeks off to rest his knee and return to work on 4 October 1990.

10. On 4 October 1990, Mr Moore-McQuillan returned to work, directing advanced dive courses but not beginner dive courses which were more strenuous.

11. On 31 December 1990, the Seidels terminated Mr Moore-McQuillan’s employment.

    Employment proceedings

12. On 6 March 1991, Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted a proceeding in the Industrial Court against the Seidels under section 15(1)(d) of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1972 (SA) claiming amongst other things that he had been underpaid at $10 per hour when the award rate was $10.92 per hour with a 20 per cent loading for casual workers.

13. On 31 May 1991, Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted a proceeding in the Industrial Commission against the Seidels seeking re-employment or compensation under section 31 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1972 (SA).

14. On 26 June 1991, Mr Moore-McQuillan’s proceedings in the Industrial Court and Commission were settled when the parties entered into a compromise agreement under which the Seidels paid $3,500 to Mr Moore-McQuillan and he released them from all claims that he then had or at any time thereafter may have against them (except under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) (the Compensation Act). A deed of release was executed by Mr Moore-McQuillan. Notices of discontinuance were signed and subsequently filed.

    Workers compensation proceedings

15. On 21 January 1991, Mr Moore-McQuillan lodged with WorkCover a claim for compensation under the Compensation Act. [1]

    [1]    The Compensation Act was repealed by the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) principally with effect on 1 July 2015 (some sections came into effect on 4 December 2014). However, under clause 50 of schedule 9, existing proceedings commenced in the Workers Compensation Tribunal under the Compensation Act were to continue under the Compensation Act. All underlying proceedings in this action were commenced before 1 July 2015. For ease of reference, I refer to the Compensation Act in the present tense as if it were still in force.

16. On 27 January 1991, Mr Moore-McQuillan consulted his general practitioner, Dr Begg.

17. On 28 March 1991, WorkCover rejected Mr Moore-McQuillan’s claim on the ground that the asserted disability did not arise out of or in the course of his employment.

18. On 4 April 1991, Mr Moore-McQuillan consulted Dr Moss, an orthopaedic surgeon, to whom he had been referred by Dr Begg. Dr Moss diagnosed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s knee injury as a dislocated patella with subsequent traumatic chondromalacia.

19. In about April 1991, Mr Moore-McQuillan applied for a review of WorkCover’s rejection of his claim for compensation.

20. On 27 August 1991, Review Officer Lovering set aside WorkCover’s decision and substituted a determination that Mr Moore-McQuillan suffered a compensable disability on 9 September 1990. Review Officer Lovering determined that Mr Moore-McQuillan was:

    (a)     fully incapacitated from 13 September to 4 October 1990;

    (b)partially incapacitated from 4 October to 31 December 1990 over which period he sustained loss of income of $330 per week (for beginner courses);

    (c)partially incapacitated from 1 January 1991 onwards for which he was entitled to income maintenance the calculation of which she left to the parties.

21. On 11 October 1991, WorkCover made a determination that Mr Moore-McQuillan’s notional weekly earnings were $765.88 at the time of his injury for the purpose of his entitlement to income maintenance payments. He became entitled to 90 per cent of that amount after 13 weeks and 80 per cent of that amount after 26 weeks. He became entitled to annual adjustments pursuant to section 39 of the Compensation Act on each anniversary of 9 September 1990.

22. WorkCover made annual determinations under section 39 of the Compensation Act adjusting Mr Moore-McQuillan’s notional weekly earnings with effect on 9 September each year as follows:

Year commencing	Amount
9 September 1990	$765.88
9 September 1992	$788.99
9 September 1993	$797.66
9 September 1994	$808.03

1. On 17 December 1991, Mr Moore-McQuillan underwent an arthroscopy of the left knee.

2. On 12 May 1992, Mr Moore-McQuillan underwent an arthroscopy, arthrotomy and meniscectomy of the left knee.

3. On 22 October 1993, Mr Moore-McQuillan underwent a chondroplasty of the left and right knees.

4. In March 1994, Mr Moore-McQuillan fell and injured his ribs.

5. On 1 July 1995, Mr Moore-McQuillan applied for a review of WorkCover’s October 1991 determination of his notional weekly earnings.

6. On 1 August 1995, WorkCover outsourced to VACC the management of claims by Mr Moore-McQuillan. At some point, VACC retained Donaldson Walsh as its solicitors.

7. On 13 October 1995, Review Officer Pope determined that Mr Moore-McQuillan’s notional weekly earnings at the time of his injury were $1,024.19. Review Officer Pope determined that he was entitled to:

   (a)$330 per week up to 31 December 1990 while employed by Wolf Dive;

   (b)$1,024.19 per week when fully incapacitated and to that amount adjusted in accordance with the Compensation Act by reference to his income when he was in paid employment.

8. WorkCover applied the annual increases referred to at [22] above to arrive at the following adjusted notional weekly earnings:

Year commencing	Amount
9 September 1990	$1,024.19
9 September 1992	$1,076.81
9 September 1993	$1,088.65
9 September 1994	$1,102.80
9 September 1995	$1,114.93

Restraining order proceedings

1. On 21 September 1995, the Police filed in the Magistrates Court a complaint seeking a restraining order against Mr Moore-McQuillan in respect of dealings with seven WorkCover and Stratford & Co personnel. A Magistrate made an ex parte interim restraining order (the first restraining order).

2. On 10 October 1995, at a pre-trial conference, Mr Moore-McQuillan agreed to the interim restraining order being confirmed. The Magistrate confirmed the first restraining order.

3. The Police subsequently filed a complaint in the Magistrates Court against Mr Moore-McQuillan alleging three counts of breaching the first restraining order, one count of assaulting police and one count of resisting police.

4. On 4 March 1996, Mr Moore-McQuillan pleaded guilty before Mr Harris SM to the five counts. On 22 March 1996, Mr Moore-McQuillan was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three months and two weeks, suspended upon entering into a bond to be of good behaviour.

   Dishonesty proceedings

5. WorkCover filed in the Magistrates Court a complaint dated 28 April 1995 charging Mr Moore-McQuillan with 20 counts of obtaining payments by dishonest means between March 1993 and March 1995 in contravention of section 120(1)(a) of the Compensation Act.

6. On 13 March 1996, Mr Moore-McQuillan pleaded guilty before Mr Deegan SM to six counts of obtaining payments by dishonest means and the remaining counts were withdrawn. He was represented by counsel. He was convicted and released upon entering into a bond to be of good behaviour. He was ordered to pay compensation, legal fees and investigation costs to WorkCover totaling $13,317.

7. On 27 March 1996, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal against his dishonesty convictions (830 of 1996). WorkCover contends that he instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (DIS1).

8. On 2 August 1996, Perry J dismissed the appeal.

   Workers compensation proceedings

9. On 7 February 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal an appeal and application for an extension of time to appeal against Review Officer Lovering’s August 1991 decision on the ground that his notional weekly earnings should have included $120 per week in respect of free lodging which he contended was provided as part of his employment package (16W of 1997). When it came on for hearing with appeal 22W of 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan sought and was granted leave to withdraw it.

10. On 26 February 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal an appeal and application for an extension of time to appeal to against Review Officer Pope’s October 1995 decision on the same ground as in proceeding 16W (22W of 1997). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (WI1).

11. On 2 May 1997, Deputy President Judge Parsons dismissed the appeal against Review Officer Pope’s decision.

12. On 6 May 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal a second appeal and application for extension of time to appeal against Review Officer Lovering’s August 1991 decision on the same ground as his first appeal (65W of 1997). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (WI2).

13. On 6 February 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan lodged with WorkCover 20 claims for, amongst other things, lump sum compensation for permanent disabilities under section 43 of the Compensation Act.

14. On 18 July 1997, WorkCover made determinations rejecting Mr Moore-McQuillan’s claims.

1. Mr Moore-McQuillan subsequently attended a medical examination by Dr Fry, an orthopaedic surgeon, arranged by WorkCover. On 16 December 1997, Dr Fry provided a report to WorkCover in relation to the claimed disabilities.

2. On 30 January 1998, WorkCover made fresh determinations rejecting Mr Moore-McQuillan’s lump sum compensation claims.

3. On 6 February 1998, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal four notices of dispute in respect of four of WorkCover’s January 1998 determinations (5488, 5493, 5497 and 5498 of 1998).

4. On 6 February 1998, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal 16 notices of dispute in respect of 16 of WorkCover’s January 1998 determinations (5489-5490, 5494, 5496 and 5499-5510 of 1998). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted these proceedings without reasonable ground (PERM1 to PERM9).

5. Between 6 February and 15 May 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan lodged with WorkCover claims for stress, anxiety and depression caused by:

   1.Stan Coulter and his case managers on 21 January 1991;

   2.Eric Minden on 21 January 1991;

   3. Andrew Thompson in April 1993;

   4.Sue Magtengaard in December 1994;

   5.VACC and staff on 6 February 1997;

   6.Keith Brown on 19 February 1997;

   7.Steve Georgiadis on 20 February 1997;

   8.Bob Morgan in the presence of Steve Georgiadis, Mal Millikan and Pat Amey on 26 February 1997;

   9.Kathy Power and Steve Georgiadis on 28 February 1997;

   10.a stalker on 18 March 1997;

   11.a stalker on 24 March 1997;

   12.two thugs on 26 March 1997;

   13.a stalker on 7 April 1997;

   14.WorkCover, VACC and Donaldson Walsh on 14 May 1997;

   15.Donaldson Walsh staff on 15 May 1997.

6. On 18 July 1997, WorkCover made determinations rejecting Mr Moore-McQuillan’s claims for stress.

7. On 25 July 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan consulted Dr Lukacs, a psychiatrist. He continued to consult Dr Lukacs until July 2000.

8. On 29 December 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal 15 notices of dispute in respect of WorkCover’s determinations rejecting his stress claims. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted each proceeding without reasonable ground (STRESS1 to STRESS15).

9. On 26 March 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of dispute against WorkCover complaining about the manner in which VACC had dealt with him (1623 of 1997).

10. On 18 July 1997, WorkCover made a determination discontinuing Mr Moore-McQuillan’s weekly payments pursuant to section 36(1)(f) of the Compensation Act.

11. On 14 August 1997, Deputy President Judge Gilchrist made an order under section 88DA of the Compensation Act by consent enlarging the scope of proceeding 1623 of 1997 to include four additional issues:

    1.whether Mr Moore-McQuillan had outstanding entitlements to weekly income maintenance for the period 1 January 1993 to 31 October 1995 (issue A);

    2.whether WorkCover was entitled to discontinue weekly payments in accordance with its 18 July 1997 determination (issue B);

    3.whether Mr Moore-McQuillan was entitled to certain medical and travel expenses (issue C); and

    4.whether Mr Moore-McQuillan was entitled to compensation for certain claimed compensable disabilities (issue D).

    Restraining order proceedings

12. On 18 February 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal seeking an extension of time in which to appeal against the October 1995 confirmation of the first restraining order (239 of 1997).

13. On 24 June 1997, Duggan J extended the time for Mr Moore-McQuillan to appeal and allowed his appeal, setting aside the confirmation of the first restraining order and remitting the matter to another Magistrate for rehearing (239 of 1997).

14. On 19 December 1997, Mr Field SM refused to confirm the first restraining order and dismissed the complaint. Mr Field SM ordered that the Police pay Mr Moore-McQuillan’s costs fixed at $120 for conveyance and car parking.

    Dishonesty proceedings

15. On 4 April 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court an application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal against Perry J’s August 1996 dismissal of his appeal against his March 1996 dishonesty convictions (830 of 1996).

16. On 23 May 1997, Perry J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application. Mr Moore-McQuillan subsequently renewed his application for leave to appeal to the Full Court. On 20 July 1997, the Full Court dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for leave to appeal.

17. On 8 August 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Magistrates Court an application for further time to pay the balance of the monies ordered by Mr Deegan SM on 13 March 1996.

18. In September 1997, the High Court refused special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s July 1997 judgment.

    FOI proceedings

19. On 12 May 1997, Paul Rodas lodged an application with WorkCover under the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) (the FOI Act) for access to documents relating to Mr Moore-McQuillan.

20. On 2 June 1997, WorkCover refused access on the ground, amongst others, that the documents were restricted documents within the meaning of clause 4(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act (contains matter the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any person).

21. On 19 June 1997, Mr Rodas filed in the District Court a notice of appeal against WorkCover’s refusal (1035 of 1997).

22. On 29 October 1997, Judge Allan dismissed Mr Rodas’ appeal. Judge Allan ordered that he pay WorkCover’s costs of the appeal.

23. On 12 November 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal against Judge Allan’s judgment (1556 of 1997). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (FOI1).

    Workers compensation proceedings

24. On 19 January 1998, Deputy President Thompson:

    1.dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application alleging underpayment of compensation between January 1993 and October 1995 because WorkCover had not produced accurate or reliable figures in respect of payments to and by Mr Moore-McQuillan (Issue A);

    2.set aside by consent WorkCover’s July 1997 determination discontinuing weekly payments on the basis that Mr Moore-McQuillan would attend an appointment with Dr Fry (Issue B);

    3.decided Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for medical and travel expenses, allowing a total of $11,832.77 (Issue C).

25. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of appeal against Thompson DP’s dismissal of his underpayment claim (Issue A).

26. On 5 August 1998, the Full Bench of the Workers Compensation Tribunal allowed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Thompson DP’s dismissal of his underpayment claim and remitted the matter for rehearing.

27. In 1998, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed a notice of dispute claiming interest of $4,276.25 for late payment of the principal amounts of $11,832.77 (VAR1).

    Assault proceedings

28. On 22 March 1997, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal seeking an extension of time in which to appeal against his March 1996 restraining order breach, assault police and resist police convictions (240 of 1997). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding insofar as it related to his assault and resist police convictions without reasonable ground (AST1).

29. On 17 February 1998, Duggan J delivered reasons for judgment allowing Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against his restraining order breach convictions.  Duggan J dismissed his appeal against his assault and resist police convictions.

30. On 25 February 1998, Duggan J imposed a fresh penalty for assaulting and resisting police of imprisonment for one month suspended upon Mr Moore-McQuillan entering into a bond to be of good behavior. Duggan J made no order as to the costs of the appeal or of the proceeding in the Magistrates Court.

31. Mr Moore-McQuillan applied to Duggan J for leave to appeal. On 17 March 1998, Duggan J refused that application. On 31 March 1998, Mr Moore-McQuillan renewed his application to the Full Court for permission to appeal against Duggan J’s dismissal of his appeal against his assault and resist police convictions and sought an extension of time in which to do so. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (AST2).

32. On 15 April 1998, a formal order was sealed by the Supreme Court that incorrectly merged the separate orders made by Duggan J on 17 and 25 February 1998.

    Millikan prosecution

33. On 24 February 1998, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Magistrates Court a complaint against Malcolm Millikan alleging three counts of contravening a provision of the Compensation Act in contravention of section 122 thereof, namely that:

    1.in December 1994 Mr Millikan dishonestly withheld details of Mr Moore-McQuillan’s wages knowing that he was being underpaid;

    2.on 28 April 1995 Mr Millikan failed to comply with section 35(1)(b)(ii) when charging Mr Moore-McQuillan with obtaining payments by dishonest means;

    3.on 13 March and 16 August 1996 Mr Millikan failed to comply with section 110 when ordering Kingswood Loss Assessors SA to access Insurance Reference Service Ltd records.

34. On 21 April 1998, Ms O’Connor SM dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s complaint on the ground that subsection 122(4) of the Compensation Act rendered a member of staff of WorkCover immune from prosecution for any act or omission related to the administration or enforcement of the Compensation Act.

35. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal against Ms O’Connor SM’s dismissal of his complaint (848 of 1998). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (MISC1).

36. On 1 September 1998, Bleby J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal.

    Dishonesty proceedings

37. On 18 March 1998, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Magistrates Court an application to set aside his March 1996 dishonesty convictions.

38. On 31 March 1998, Ms Hayes SM dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application.

39. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal against Ms Hayes SM’s dismissal of his application (507 of 1998). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (DIS2).

40. On 24 April 1998, Mr Gurry SM refused Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for further time to pay the balance of the monies ordered by Mr Deegan SM in March 1996. Mr Gurry SM ordered that Mr Moore-McQuillan pay the sum of $400 in costs.

41. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal against Mr Gurry SM’s orders (749 of 1998). WorkCover contends that the appeal was instituted without reasonable ground (DIS3).

42. On 6 May 1998, Lander J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Ms Hayes SM’s March 1998 dismissal of his application to set aside his March 1996 dishonesty convictions (DIS2).

43. Mr Moore-McQuillan applied for leave to appeal. On 5 June 1998, Lander J refused leave to appeal.

44. On 8 July 1998, Debelle J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Mr Gurry SM’s April 1998 orders (DIS3).

45. On 13 August 1998, the High Court dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s July 1997 refusal of leave to appeal against Perry J’s dismissal of his appeal against his March 1996 dishonesty convictions (A49 of 1997).

    FOI proceedings

46. On 5 March 1998, Nyland J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for leave to appeal against Judge Allan’s October 1997 judgment (FOI1). Mr Moore-McQuillan renewed before the Full Court his application for leave to appeal.

47. On 18 September 1998, on the application of Mr Rodas, Judge Allan revoked his October 1997 costs order and instead ordered that Mr Moore-McQuillan pay WorkCover’s costs of the appeal brought by Mr Rodas (1035 of 1997).

48. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal seeking leave to appeal against Judge Allan’s costs order (1343 of 1999). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (FOI2).

49. On 20 October 1998, the Full Court refused leave to appeal against Judge Allan’s October 1997 judgment (FOI1). 

    Employment proceedings

50. On 8 April 1998, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Industrial Relations Court:

    1.an application against WorkCover seeking payment of five per cent superannuation calculated in respect of weekly income maintenance paid between 1991 and 1998 on the ground that WorkCover was his employer and superannuation was payable under the Shop Conciliation Committee Award (134 of 1998), which WorkCover contends was instituted without reasonable ground (EMP1);

    2.an application against Wolf Dive seeking payment of five per cent superannuation calculated in respect of weekly income maintenance paid between 1991 and 1998 on the ground that Wolf Dive was his employer and superannuation was payable under the Shop Conciliation Committee Award (135 of 1998), which WorkCover contends was instituted without reasonable ground (EMP2).

    Restraining order proceedings

51. On 4 May 1998, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal seeking an extension of time in which to appeal against Mr Field SM’s December 1997 costs order (748 of 1998). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (RO1).

52. On 27 November 1998, Debelle J refused an extension of time in which to appeal and dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal.

53. On 10 December 1998, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court an application for leave to appeal to the Full Court against Debelle J’s judgment. Ultimately it came before Debelle J, who refused leave, and Mr Moore-McQuillan renewed his application before the Full Court. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (RO2).

    Workers compensation proceedings

54. On 6 November 1998, Parsons DPJ refused Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for an extension of time and dismissed his appeal against Review Officer Lovering’s August 1991 determination (WI2).

55. In November 1998, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court an application for leave to appeal against Parsons DPJ’s decision (1512 of 1998). On 27 November 1998, Millhouse J refused leave to appeal. Mr Moore-McQuillan renewed his application for leave to the Full Court. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (WI3).

56. By January 1999, Royal and Sun Alliance Workers Compensation (SA) Ltd (Royal Sun Alliance) had taken over from VACC claims management on behalf of WorkCover.

57. On 24 February and 12 April 1999, Royal Sun Alliance posted to Mr Moore-McQuillan letters saying that it was considering whether to assess his loss of future earning capacity as a capital loss pursuant to section 42A of the Compensation Act and requiring earnings information pursuant to section 42B(1)(b).

58. On 9 September 1999, Mr Moore-McQuillan consulted Dr Gauvin, a specialist in neuro-psychiatry.

59. On 1 December 1999, Royal Sun Alliance suspended Mr Moore-McQuillan’s weekly payments pursuant to section 42B(2)(a) of the Compensation Act for failure to comply with the 24 February and 12 April 1999 requests to provide earnings information.

60. On 3 December 1999, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of dispute in respect of WorkCover’s determination to suspend his weekly payments (6926 of 1999).

61. On 1 December 1999, Royal Sun Alliance also reduced Mr Moore-McQuillan’s weekly payments pursuant to subsection 38(7) of the Compensation Act to $220.70 on the ground that he was capable of working as a diving supervisor and earning $968.71 per week or alternatively as a diving instructor or diver.

62. On 3 December 1999, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of dispute in respect of WorkCover’s determination to reduce his weekly payments (7089 of 1999).

    Employment proceedings

63. On 31 March 1999, Mr Cunningham IM:

    1.dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s April 1998 application against WorkCover on the ground that Mr Moore-McQuillan had never been employed by WorkCover (EMP1); and

    2.dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s April 1998 application against Wolf Dive on the ground that Mr Moore-McQuillan’s employment with Wolf Dive terminated on 31 December 1990 and alternatively the claim against Wolf Dive was precluded by the June 1991 release (EMP2).

64. On 29 October 1999, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Industrial Relations Court:

    1.a notice of appeal and application for extension of time in which to appeal against Mr Cunningham IM’s dismissal of his application for superannuation against WorkCover, which WorkCover contends was instituted without reasonable ground (EMP3);

    2.a notice of appeal and application for extension of time in which to appeal against Mr Cunningham IM’s dismissal of his application for superannuation against Wolf Dive, which WorkCover contends was instituted without reasonable ground (EMP4).

    Assault proceedings

65. On 8 July 1998, an incident took place between Mr Moore-McQuillan and a barrister Mr Rice.

66. On 22 October 1998, the Police filed in the Magistrates Court a complaint against Mr Moore-McQuillan alleging that he assaulted Mr Rice.

67. On 24 January 2000, Mr Field SM commenced the trial of the assault charge. Mr Moore-McQuillan sought an adjournment on medical grounds. Mr Field SM refused the application.

68. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal against Mr Field SM’s refusal of the adjournment (71 of 2000). WorkCover contends that the appeal was instituted without reasonable ground (AST3).

69. On 25 January 2000, Mullighan J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal.

70. On 17 February 2000, Mr Field SM found Mr Moore-McQuillan guilty of assault. Mr Moore-McQuillan was sentenced to imprisonment for six months suspended upon his entering into a bond to be of good behavior.  Mr Field SM also made a restraining order restraining Mr Moore-McQuillan from approaching or communicating with Mr Rice.

71. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal against his assault conviction and the restraining order (193 of 2000). WorkCover contends that the appeal was instituted without reasonable ground (AST4).

72. On 7 July 2000, the Full Court of the Supreme Court refused an extension of time in which to appeal and leave to appeal against Duggan J’s February 1998 judgment dismissing Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against his March 1996 assaulting and resisting police convictions (AST2).

73. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the High Court an application for special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s refusal of leave to appeal (A29 of 2000).

74. On 3 April 2001, Bleby J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeals against his February 2000 assault conviction and the restraining order made by Mr Field SM (AST4).

    Restraining order proceedings

75. On 29 February 2000, Debelle J refused leave to appeal to the Full Court against his November 1998 judgment dismissing Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Mr Field SM’s December 1997 costs order. On 13 March 2000, Mr Moore-McQuillan renewed his application to the Full Court for leave to appeal (RO2).

76. On 7 July 2000, the Full Court of the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

77. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the High Court an application for special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s refusal of leave to appeal (A30 of 2000).

    FOI proceedings

78. On 24 March 2000, Debelle J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Judge Allan’s September 1998 costs order (FOI2).

79. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed an application for leave to appeal to the Full Court against Debelle J’s judgment. On 2 May 2000, Debelle J refused leave and on 18 May 2000 Mr Moore-McQuillan renewed his application before the Full Court. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (FOI3).

1. On 2 June 2000, the Full Court refused leave to appeal.

   Dishonesty proceedings

2. On 3 July 2000, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court an application for leave to appeal to the Full Court and an extension of time in which to appeal against Lander J’s May 1998 dismissal of his appeal against Ms Hayes SM’s dismissal of his application to set aside his March 1996 dishonesty convictions. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (DIS4).

3. On 17 July 2000, the Full Court of the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and an extension of time to appeal.

   Workers compensation proceedings

4. On 17 May 2000, the Workers Compensation Tribunal received a letter from Mr Moore-McQuillan saying that he was under medical treatment and not fit to proceed with his pending proceedings before the Tribunal (which pending proceedings included his notices of dispute filed on 3 December 1999 (6926 and 7089 of 1999). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan made an application for a stay of proceedings for the ulterior purpose of preserving his pre-existing weekly payment rate (RED1).

5. On 7 July 2000, the Full Court of the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal against Millhouse J’s November 1998 decision refusing Mr Moore-McQuillan leave to appeal against Parsons DPJ’s November 1998 decision dismissing his appeal against Review Officer Lovering’s August 1991 determination (WI3).

6. On 14 July 2000, Deputy President McCouaig determined that Mr Moore-McQuillan was fit to proceed with his pending proceedings (RED1).

7. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of appeal against McCouaig DP’s determination. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (RED3).

8. On 31 July 2000, Mr Moore-McQuillan made an application to McCouaig DP that he disqualify himself from further hearing his pending matters on the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan made the application for the ulterior purpose of preserving his pre-existing weekly payment rate and that it was made without reasonable ground (RED2).

9. On 7 August 2000, McCouaig DP declined to disqualify himself (RED2).

10. On 4 October 2000, the Full Bench of the Workers Compensation Tribunal dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against McCouaig DP’s determination that he was fit to proceed with his pending proceedings (RED3).

11. On 27 March 2001, McCouaig DP:

    1.set aside WorkCover’s December 1999 determination suspending his weekly earnings (6926 of 1999);

    2.affirmed WorkCover’s December 1999 determination reducing Mr Moore-McQuillan’s weekly earnings except that he fixed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s entitlement at nil (7089 of 1999).

12. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of appeal against McCouaig DP’s affirmation and determination fixing Mr Moore-McQuillan’s entitlement at nil. One of the grounds of appeal was bias by McCouaig DP. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground insofar as it included bias as a ground of appeal (RED4).

13. Mr Moore-McQuillan applied for a stay of McCouaig DP’s order pending the hearing and determination of his appeal. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan made the application for the ulterior purpose of preserving his pre-existing weekly payment rate and that it was instituted without reasonable ground (RED5).

14. On 4 May 2001, the Full Bench of the Workers Compensation Tribunal dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for a stay of McCouaig DP’s order.

15. In 2001, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of dispute in respect of an injury to his right elbow that he claimed to have suffered on 24 July 2001 (6484 of 2001). WorkCover contends that this proceeding was instituted without reasonable ground (PERM10).

16. On 27 August 2001, Mr Moore-McQuillan applied to Thompson DP to disqualify himself from further hearing interlocutory matters on the ground of bias. WorkCover contends that the application was made without reasonable ground (VAR4).

17. On 6 September 2001, the Full Bench of the Workers Compensation Tribunal allowed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against McCouaig DP’s March 2001 judgment to the extent of setting aside the fixing of Mr Moore-McQuillan’s entitlement at nil, but upheld WorkCover’s determination to reduce his weekly payments to $220.70 per week (RED4).

18. On 13 September 2001, McCouaig DP ordered that Mr Moore-McQuillan pay WorkCover’s costs of Mr Moore-McQuillan’s stay and disqualification applications and 75 per cent of its costs in proceeding 7089 of 1999. McCouaig DP made an order that WorkCover pay Mr Moore-McQuillan’s costs in proceeding 6926 of 1999.

19. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of appeal to the Full Bench against McCouaig DP’s costs order in proceeding 7089 of 1999. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (RED6).

20. On 19 September 2001, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed an application in the Supreme Court for leave to appeal to the Full Court against McCouaig DP’s March 2001 judgment and the Full Bench’s September 2001 judgment (1324 of 2001). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (RED7).

21. On 1 November 2001, WorkCover determined that weekly payments be discontinued based largely on the factual findings made by McCouaig DP on 27 March 2001.

22. On 8 November 2001, Thompson DP declined to disqualify himself from further hearing interlocutory matters (VAR4).

23. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of appeal to the Full Bench against Thompson DP’s refusal to disqualify himself. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (VAR5).

24. On 21 November 2001, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of dispute in respect of WorkCover’s determination rejecting a claim for his PADI annual renewal for 2001/02 (8476 of 2001). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the proceeding without reasonable ground (VAR6).

25. On 21 November 2001, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of dispute in respect of WorkCover’s 1 November 2001 determination to discontinue weekly payments (8468 of 2001).

26. On 29 November 2001, WorkCover conducted an annual review of Mr Moore-McQuillan’s weekly entitlements pursuant to section 39 of the Compensation Act and adjusted them to $235.05.

27. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of dispute in respect of WorkCover’s determination (8902 of 2001).

28. On 20 December 2001, Williams J refused leave to Mr Moore-McQuillan to appeal against McCouaig DP’s March 2001 judgment and the Full Bench’s September 2001 judgment on the ground that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal (RED7).

    Employment proceedings

29. On 11 October 2001, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the District Court a summons against Mr Seidel seeking an order that the June 1991 release be set aside (1567 of 2001).

30. On 14 November 2001, Senior Judge Jennings refused Mr Moore-McQuillan’s applications for an extension of time in which to appeal and struck out his appeals against Mr Cunningham IM’s March 1999 judgments dismissing his applications for superannuation against WorkCover (EMP3) and Wolf Dive (EMP4).

31. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Industrial Relations Court notices of appeal to the Full Court against Senior Judge Jennings’ refusals of extensions of time and orders striking out his appeals against Mr Cunningham IM’s judgments dismissing his applications against WorkCover (EMP5) and Wolf Dive (EMP6). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground.

    Dishonesty proceedings

32. On 12 February 1999, Mr Moore-McQuillan allegedly lodged with Royal Sun Alliance a notice of work related injury claiming that he chipped his tooth on 20 January 1999 as a result of a fall due to his knee giving way. On the same day, Mr Moore-McQuillan allegedly telephoned Mr Duncan of Royal Sun Alliance on two occasions referring to the claim.

33. In 2002, WorkCover filed a complaint in the Magistrates Court against Mr Moore-McQuillan alleging that on 12 February 1999 he dishonestly claimed to be entitled to a payment pursuant to the Compensation Act in contravention of section 120(1)(b) and dishonestly made two statements about a claim pursuant to the Compensation Act knowing it to be false or misleading in contravention of section 120(1)(c).

    Assault proceedings

34. On 15 August 2000, an incident took place between Mr Moore-McQuillan and Mr Downs in a lift at the Sir Samuel Way Building. This led to the Police filing in the Magistrates Court a complaint against Mr Moore-McQuillan alleging assault.

35. On 22 February 2002, Ms Bolton SM found Mr Moore-McQuillan guilty of assault.

36. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal against his assault conviction (321 of 2002). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (AST5).

37. On 4 March 2002, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against Bleby J’s April 2001 dismissal of his appeals against his February 2000 assault conviction and the restraining order made by Mr Field SM (193 of 2000). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (AST6).

38. On 22 March 2002, Bleby J refused Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for an extension of time. Mr Moore-McQuillan renewed his applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal to the Full Court (AST6).

39. On 19 April 2002, the High Court by consent granted special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s July 2000 refusal of leave to appeal against Duggan J’s February 1998 judgment dismissing his appeal against his assault and resist police convictions, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Full Court for further hearing and determination (A29 of 2000).

40. On 24 May 2002, the Full Court refused Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for an extension of time to appeal against Bleby J’s April 2001 dismissal of his appeals against his February 2000 assault conviction and the restraining order made by Mr Field SM (AST6).

41. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the High Court an application for special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s refusal (A81 of 2002).

42. On 27 June 2002, Mullighan J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against his February 2002 assault conviction, delivering reasons for the dismissal on 25 October 2002 (AST5).

43. On 1 August 2002, the Full Court made orders by consent rectifying the 15 April 1998 formal order to separate the orders made by Duggan J on 17 and 25 February 1998. The Full Court refused an extension of time in which to appeal and leave to appeal against Duggan J’s February 1998 judgments (AST2).

    Workers compensation proceedings

44. On various dates between 8 February 2002 and 26 February 2004, Image Investigations conducted surveillance of work activities by Mr Moore-McQuillan.

45. On 20 February 2002, WorkCover suspended Mr Moore-McQuillan’s weekly payments pursuant to subsection 38(6) of the Compensation Act on the ground that he failed to attend a medical examination by Dr Fry.

46. On 21 February 2002, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of dispute in respect of WorkCover’s determination to suspend payments (927 of 2002). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the proceeding without reasonable ground (SUS1).

47. On 27 February 2002, WorkCover gave notice of discontinuance of Mr Moore-McQuillan’s weekly payments pursuant to subsection 36(1) of the Compensation Act on the ground that he failed to attend the medical examination by Dr Fry. Mr Moore-McQuillan’s 21 February 2002 notice of dispute was treated as encompassing this determination.

48. On 23 March 2002, Deputy President Judge Cawthorne dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for underpayment of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to make the orders sought (1623 of 1997).

49. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in Workers Compensation Tribunal an appeal to the Full Bench against Cawthorne DPJ’s judgment. The Full Bench stated a question of law to the Full Court of the Supreme Court whether the Tribunal had power to enforce an order for the payment of money. The Full Court on 16 March 2003 held that Mr Moore-McQuillan was not asking the Tribunal to enforce an order for the payment of money and that the Tribunal did not lack jurisdiction to resolve the dispute before it.

50. On 28 March 2002, the Full Bench of the Workers Compensation Tribunal dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against McCouaig DP’s September 2001 costs order (RED6).

    FOI proceedings

51. On 13 August 2001, Master Norman commenced taxing WorkCover’s costs pursuant to Judge Allan’s September 1998 costs order (1035 of 1997).

52. On 11 February and 25 March 2002, Mr Moore-McQuillan applied to Master Norman to disqualify himself on the ground of bias.

53. On 7 May 2002, Master Norman declined to disqualify himself.

54. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the District Court a notice of appeal against Master Norman’s refusal to disqualify himself. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (FOI4).

55. On 21 June 2002, Judge Bishop dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal (FOI4).

    Restraining order proceedings

56. On 19 April 2002, the High Court by consent granted special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s July 2000 refusal of leave to appeal against Debelle J’s November 1998 judgment dismissing Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Mr Field SM’s December 1997 costs order, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Full Court for further hearing and determination (A30 of 2000).

57. On 1 August 2002, the Full Court refused Mr Moore-McQuillan an extension of time in which to appeal and leave to appeal against Debelle J’s November 1998 judgment dismissing his appeal against Mr Field SM’s costs order (RO2).

    Employment proceedings

58. On 12 July 2002, Master Norman summarily dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s action in the District Court against Mr Seidel seeking an order that the June 1991 deed of release be set aside.

59. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed a notice of appeal in the District Court against Master Norman’s summary dismissal (1567 of 2001). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (EMP7).

60. On 18 October 2002, the Full Court of the Industrial Relations Court dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeals against Senior Judge Jennings’ November 2001 refusals of an extension of time and orders striking out his appeals against Mr Cunningham IM’s judgments dismissing his applications against WorkCover (EMP5) and Wolf Dive (EMP6).

61. On 20 December 2002, Judge Anderson in the District Court dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Master Norman’s summary dismissal of his action (EMP7).

    Workers compensation proceedings

62. In 1998, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed 27 applications for expedited decisions (the 27 expedited decision matters) (5801 to 5827 of 1998). WorkCover contends that proceedings 5801, 5802, 5804 to 5819 and 5823 to 5827 of 1998 were instituted without reasonable ground (VAR2).

63. In 2003, pursuant to an earlier direction given by Jennings PSJ, the Workers Compensation Tribunal created file 680 of 2003 to consolidate approximately 107 separate proceedings commenced by Mr Moore-McQuillan. These proceedings included the 27 expedited decision matters.

64. On about 28 February 2003, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of dispute in respect of a determination by WorkCover rejecting a claim for $465.80 for his PADI annual renewal for 2002/03 (1303 of 2002). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the proceeding without reasonable ground (VAR7).

65. On 20 March 2003, the Full Bench of the Workers Compensation Tribunal dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Thompson DP’s refusal to disqualify himself (VAR5).

66. On 17 June 2003, the Full Bench of the Workers Compensation Tribunal allowed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Cawthorne DPJ’s March 2002 judgment dismissing Mr Moore-McQuillan’s underpayment application and referred the underpayment dispute for hearing and determination by a single member of the Tribunal (1623 of 1997).

67. In or after June 2003, the underpayment dispute was referred to Olsson AJ. At a directions hearing, Mr Moore-McQuillan sought to challenge WorkCover’s determinations of his notional weekly earnings on the grounds that they were below applicable award rates and did not include a free lodging allowance. Olsson AJ said that it was not within his power to reopen the determinations within the ambit of the 1623 of 1997 proceeding.

68. In or before July 2003, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal:

    1.a third appeal and application for an extension of time to appeal against Review Officer Lovering’s August 1991 decision (4711 of 2003), which WorkCover contends was instituted without reasonable ground (WI5);

    2.a second appeal and application for an extension of time to appeal against Review Officer Pope’s October 1995 decision (4719 of 2003), which WorkCover contends was instituted without reasonable ground (WI6).

69. Each appeal was on the ground that Mr Moore-McQuillan was entitled to the award rate under the Retail Industry Award and the Award for a Scuba Diving Instructor plus a free lodging benefit of $120 per week.

70. On 31 July 2003, Deputy President Judge McCusker refused an extension of time and dismissed the appeals (WI5 and WI6).

71. In August 2003, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court an application for leave to appeal against McCusker DPJ’s judgments (1113 of 2003). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (WI7).

72. On 22 August 2003, Perry J refused leave to appeal against McCusker DPJ’s judgments. Mr Moore-McQuillan renewed his application for leave to the Full Court (WI7).

73. On 2 October 2003, the Full Court of the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal against McCusker DPJ’s judgments (WI7).

74. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the High Court an application for special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s judgment (A265 of 2003).

75. In December 2003, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of dispute in respect of a determination by WorkCover rejecting a claim for $846.50 for his PADI annual renewal and insurance premium for 2003/04 (8704 of 2003). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the proceeding without reasonable ground (VAR8).

    Assault proceedings

76. On 14 August 2003, the High Court refused special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s May 2002 refusal of an extension of time to appeal against Bleby J’s April 2001 judgment dismissing Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeals against his February 2000 assault conviction and the restraining order made by Mr Field SM (A81 of 2002).

77. On 12 November 2003, an incident occurred between Mr Moore-McQuillan and Mr Downs in a courtroom immediately before and after Olsson AJ was sitting. This led to the Police filing in the Magistrates Court in 2005 an information against Mr Moore-McQuillan charging assault and threatening to cause harm (436 of 2005).

78. On 21 April 2004, an incident occurred between Mr Moore-McQuillan and Richard Webb. This led to the Police filing in the Magistrates Court in 2006 an information against Mr Moore-McQuillan charging assault occasioning actual bodily harm (4483 of 2006).

    Dishonesty proceedings

79. In 2002, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the High Court an application for special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s July 2000 refusal of leave to appeal and an extension of time to appeal against Lander J’s May 1998 judgment dismissing Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Ms Hayes SM’s March 1998 dismissal of his application to set aside his March 1996 dishonesty convictions (A125 of 2002).

1. On 14 August 2003, the High Court refused special leave to appeal.

2. On 6 February 2004, Mr Harry SM convicted Mr Moore-McQuillan of dishonestly claiming to be entitled to a payment pursuant to the Compensation Act in contravention of section 120(1)(b) and dishonestly making a statement about a claim pursuant to the Compensation Act knowing it to be false or misleading in contravention of section 120(1)(c) on 12 February 1999.

3. On 13 February 2004, Mr Harry SM imposed a penalty that Mr Moore-McQuillan perform 56 community service hours and ordered that he pay investigation and prosecution costs of $115,000.

4. Mr Moore-McQuillan subsequently filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal against Mr Harry SM’s 6 and 13 February 2004 dishonesty convictions, sentence and orders (251 of 2004). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (DIS5).

5. On 23 February 2004, Mr Moore-McQuillan became bankrupt on his own petition.

   Workers compensation proceedings

6. In March 2004, Olsson AJ commenced hearing a claim by Mr Moore-McQuillan for interest on $11,832.77 the subject of Thompson DP’s 19 January 1998 determination (5487 of 1998). WorkCover contends that this claim was made without reasonable ground (VAR1).

7. On 23 April 2004, Olsson AJ determined that Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for underpayment of compensation between 1 January 1993 and 31 October 1995 was properly rejected by WorkCover (1623 of 1997 Issue A). Olsson AJ proceeded on the basis that Mr Moore-McQuillan’s notional weekly earnings ranged from $1,076.81 in January 1993 to $1,114.93 in October 1995 in accordance with Review Officer Pope’s determination and annual adjustments made under section 39 of the Compensation Act by WorkCover.

8. Olsson AJ made findings as to the amount of payments made by WorkCover to Mr Moore-McQuillan and repayments by him to WorkCover in respect of his weekly income entitlements and found that there was a small net overpayment by WorkCover to him.

9. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal an appeal to the Full Bench against Olsson AJ’s judgment (1623 of 1997). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (WI4).

10. On 2 July 2004, Olsson AJ:

    1. dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s claim for interest on $11,832.77 the subject of Thompson DP’s 19 January 1998 determination (5487 of 1998) on the ground that the Compensation Act did not provide for interest on such expenses (VAR1);

    2.upheld WorkCover’s rejection of Mr Moore-McQuillan’s claims for his PADI annual renewals for 2001/02, 2002/03 and 2003/04 (VAR6 to VAR8);

    3.found that proceedings 5801 to 5819 and 5823 to 5827 of 1998 had been finalised (VAR2).

11. On 12 August 2004, the High Court refused special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s October 2003 judgment refusing leave to appeal against McCusker DPJ’s July 2003 judgments (A265 of 2003).

    Dishonesty proceedings

12. On 21 January 2005, Anderson J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against his February 2004 dishonesty convictions (DIS5).

13. Mr Moore-McQuillan applied for leave to appeal. Leave to appeal was refused by Anderson J. Mr Moore-McQuillan renewed to the Full Court his application for leave to appeal against Anderson J’s dismissal of his appeal. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (DIS6).

14. On 18 March 2005, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a judicial review summons against WorkCover seeking orders setting aside his March 1996 dishonesty convictions (214 of 2005).

15. On 15 April 2005, Master Lunn struck out the proceeding.

16. On 11 April 2005, the Full Court of the Supreme Court dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for leave to appeal against Anderson J’s January 2005 dismissal of his appeal against his February 2004 dishonesty convictions (DIS6).

17. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the High Court an application for special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s judgment (A23 of 2005).

18. On 2 May 2005, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal to the Full Court against Master Lunn’s April 2005 order striking out his judicial review proceeding. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (DIS7).

19. On 20 October 2005, the High Court dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s April 2005 dismissal of his application for leave to appeal against Anderson J’s January 2005 dismissal of his appeal against his February 2004 assault convictions (A23 of 2005).

20. On 22 December 2005, the Full Court of the Supreme Court dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Master Lunn’s April 2005 order striking out his judicial review proceeding (DIS7).

    Workers compensation proceedings

21. On 5 November 2004, in the course of the hearing of consolidated file 680 of 2003, Mr Moore-McQuillan objected to the admission of evidence of the content of surveillance videotapes from 29 November 1998 to 9 February 2000 on various grounds. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application to exclude the evidence was made without reasonable ground (SUS2).

22. On 25 January 2005, Olsson AJ declined to exclude evidence of the content of the surveillance videotapes, subsequently providing reasons on 8 February 2005 (SUS2).

23. On 10 March 2005, Mr Moore-McQuillan lodged with WorkCover a claim that he suffered acute anxiety and depression as a result of the conduct of Stan Coulter.

24. On 31 March 2005, WorkCover rejected Mr Moore-McQuillan’s claim.

25. On 6 April 2005, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of dispute in respect of WorkCover’s determination (2238 of 2005). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the proceeding without reasonable cause (STRESS16).

    Employment proceedings

26. On 18 March 2005, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court:

    1. a judicial review summons against WorkCover in respect of decisions of the Industrial Relations Court in 2001 and 2002 seeking orders that WorkCover calculate the correct amount of superannuation pursuant to awards and pay it to him (213 of 2005) (the Industrial Relations Court judicial review);

    2.a judicial review summons against WorkCover in respect of a decision of the Workers Compensation Tribunal seeking orders that WorkCover calculate the correct amount of income entitlement and pay it to him (215 of 2005) (the WorkCover judicial review).

27. On 15 April 2005, Master Lunn struck out each proceeding.

28. On 2 May 2005, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court:

    1.a notice of appeal to the Full Court against Master Lunn’s April 2005 order striking out his Industrial Relations Court judicial review proceeding (213 of 2005), which WorkCover contends was instituted without reasonable ground (EMP8);

    2.a notice of appeal to the Full Court against Master Lunn’s April 2005 order striking out his WorkCover judicial review proceeding (215 of 2005), which WorkCover contends was instituted without reasonable ground (WI8).

29. On 22 December 2005, the Full Court of the Supreme Court:

    1.dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Master Lunn’s April 2005 order striking out his Industrial Relations Court judicial review proceeding  (EMP8);

    2.dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Master Lunn’s April 2005 order striking out his WorkCover judicial review proceeding (WI8).

    Workers compensation proceedings

30. On 15 and 16 May 2006, in the course of the hearing of consolidated file 680 of 2003, Mr Moore-McQuillan applied to Olsson AJ to direct WorkCover to produce documents in respect of which Olsson AJ had previously upheld WorkCover’s claims to legal professional privilege and to disqualify himself on the ground of apprehended bias. WorkCover contends that the application was made without reasonable ground (SUS3).

31. On 6 June 2006, Olsson AJ refused Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application and declined to disqualify himself.

32. On 30 June 2006, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court an interlocutory application seeking to reopen his appeal against McCusker DPJ’s July 2003 judgments in appeals 4711 and 4719 of 2003 (1113 of 2003). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the proceeding without reasonable ground (WI9).

33. In about August 2006, in the course of the hearing of consolidated file 680 of 2003, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed an interlocutory application seeking an order that WorkCover pay for a lawyer to represent him. WorkCover contends that the application was made without reasonable ground (SUS4).

34. On 22 August 2006, Olsson AJ dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application that WorkCover pay for a lawyer to represent him (SUS4).

35. On 30 August 2006, the Full Bench of the Workers Compensation Tribunal dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Olsson AJ’s April 2004 judgment (WI4).

36. On 26 February 2007, Perry J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application to reopen his appeals (WI9).

37. On 27 April 2007, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court an application for leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal against Perry J’s judgment. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (WI10).

38. On 19 June 2007, Layton J refused Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for an extension of time. On 31 August 2007, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court an application for permission to appeal against Layton J’s judgment.

39. On 12 October 2007, Kelly J struck out Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application but extended the time to 9 November 2007 for him to file a notice of appeal to the Full Court against Layton J’s 19 June 2007 judgment seeking permission to appeal.

    Dishonesty proceedings

40. On 14 June 2006, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court an interlocutory application seeking to reopen his March 1996 appeal against his March 1996 dishonesty convictions (830 of 1996). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the proceeding without reasonable ground (DIS8).

41. On 26 February 2007, Perry J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application to reopen (DIS8).

42. On 27 April 2007, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court an application for leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal against Perry J’s judgment. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (DIS9).

43. On 19 June 2007, Layton J refused Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for an extension of time (DIS9).

    Contempt proceedings

44. On 6 March 2007, the Registrar issued a summons against Mr Moore-McQuillan for contempt in the face of the Court on 26 February 2007 (298 of 2007).

45. On 6 July 2007, Mr Moore-McQuillan applied to Nyland J to disqualify herself from hearing the contempt proceeding on the ground of apprehended bias. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan made the application without reasonable ground (MISC2).

46. On 8 August 2007, Nyland J declined to disqualify herself. (MISC2)

47. On 14 December 2007, Nyland J found Mr Moore-McQuillan guilty of contempt.

48. On 17 April 2008, Nyland J sentenced Mr Moore-McQuillan to imprisonment for three months for the contempt, suspended upon his entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for 18 months.

49. On 12 May 2008, Mr Moore-McQuillan used abusive and insulting language during a hearing before Olsson AJ in the Workers Compensation Tribunal.

    Assault proceedings

50. On 15 March 2006, Mr Moore-McQuillan was charged on information in the Magistrates Court with assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Mr Webb on 21 April 2004 (4483 of 2006).

51. On 6 December 2007, Mr Ward ASM found Mr Moore-McQuillan guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

52. On 28 August 2008, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed a notice of appeal and sought an extension of time in which to appeal in the Supreme Court against his assault conviction (1355 of 2008). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (AST8).

53. In 2005, Mr Moore-McQuillan was charged on information in the Magistrates Court with one count of assaulting Mr Downs and one count of threatening to cause harm to Mr Downs on 12 November 2003 (436 of 2005).

54. On 27 May 2008, Mr Bennett SM found Mr Moore-McQuillan guilty of assaulting and threatening to cause harm to Mr Downs.

55. On 28 August 2008, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal and sought an extension of time in which to appeal against his assault and threaten to cause harm convictions (1354 of 2008). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (AST7).

    Dishonesty proceedings

56. On 27 August 2008, Mr Moore-McQuillan lodged for filing in the Supreme Court a second interlocutory application seeking to reopen his appeal against his March 1996 dishonesty convictions (680 of 1996).

57. On 15 September 2008, Master Lunn directed the Registrar to reject Mr Moore-McQuillan’s interlocutory application and the Registrar wrote to Mr Moore-McQuillan rejecting the application.

58. Mr Moore-McQuillan subsequently filed in the Supreme Court an appeal against Master Lunn’s direction. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (DIS10).

    Workers compensation proceedings

59. On 27 August 2008, Mr Moore-McQuillan lodged for filing in the Supreme Court a second interlocutory application seeking to reopen his appeal against McCusker DPJ’s July 2003 judgments dismissing his appeals against Review Officer Lovering’s decision and Review Officer Pope’s decision (1113 of 2003).

60. On 15 September 2008, Master Lunn directed the Registrar to reject Mr Moore-McQuillan’s interlocutory application and the Registrar wrote to Mr Moore-McQuillan rejecting the application.

61. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court an appeal against Master Lunn’s direction. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (WI11).

62. On 27 January 2009, the Associate to Nyland J wrote to Mr Moore-McQuillan saying that, if he wished to pursue an application for permission to appeal to the Full Court against Perry J’s February 2007 judgment, it would be necessary for him to file a proposed notice of appeal in proper form seeking permission to appeal (1113 of 2003).

    Contempt proceedings

63. On 16 December 2008, Nyland J found that Mr Moore-McQuillan breached his good behavior bond by his conduct on 12 May 2008 and revoked the suspension of his three month sentence for contempt (298 of 2007).

64. On 15 January 2009, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal against the revocation of his suspension of sentence and an application for an extension of time in which to appeal (298 of 2007). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (MISC3).

65. On 4 September 2009, the Full Court of the Supreme Court refused the extension of time and dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal (MISC3).

66. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the High Court an application for special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s judgment (A19 of 2009).

67. On 11 March 2010, the High Court refused special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s judgment (A19 of 2009).

    Dishonesty proceedings

68. On 4 May 2009, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal seeking an extension of time and leave to appeal to the Full Court against Layton J’s June 2007 judgment refusing an extension of time to appeal against Perry J’s judgment dismissing his interlocutory application to reopen his March 1996 appeal against his March 1996 dishonesty convictions (830 of 1996). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appellate proceeding without reasonable ground (DIS9).

69. On 29 September 2009, the Full Court refused Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for an extension of time to appeal against Layton J’s judgment (DIS9).

70. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the High Court an application for special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s judgment (A21 of 2009).

71. On 11 March 2010, the High Court refused special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s judgment.

72. On 28 May 2010, Nyland J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Master Lunn’s September 2008 direction to the Registrar to reject Mr Moore-McQuillan’s interlocutory application seeking to reopen his appeal against his March 1996 dishonesty convictions (DIS10).

    Workers compensation proceedings

73. On 4 May 2009, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal seeking an extension of time and leave to appeal to the Full Court against Layton J’s June 2007 judgment refusing Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for an extension of time to appeal against Perry J’s judgment dismissing Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application to reopen his appeals against McCusker DPJ’s July 2003 judgments dismissing his appeals against Review Officer Lovering’s decision and Review Officer Pope’s decision (1113 of 2003).

74. On 29 September 2009, the Full Court refused Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application for an extension of time to appeal against Layton J’s June 2007 judgment.

75. Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the High Court an application for special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s September 2009 judgment (A21 of 2009).

76. On 17 February 2010, Mr Moore-McQuillan at a hearing before Nyland J pursued his appeal against Master Lunn’s September 2008 direction (1113 of 2003).

77. On 11 March 2010, the High Court refused special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s September 2009 judgment (A21 of 2009).

78. On 19 March 2010, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of appeal against McCouaig DP’s March 2001 judgment and the Full Bench’s September 2001 judgment in 7089 of 1999. WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal without reasonable ground (RED8).

79. On 28 May 2010, Nyland J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against Master Lunn’s September 2008 direction (WI11).

    Assault proceedings

80. On 28 May 2010, Nyland J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against his May 2008 assault and threaten to cause harm convictions (Mr Downs) (AST7).

81. On 28 May 2010, Nyland J dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against his December 2007 assault conviction (Mr Webb) (AST8).

    Workers compensation proceedings

82. On 9 November 2011, in the course of the hearing of consolidated file 680 of 2003, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed an interlocutory application seeking that Olsson AJ disqualify himself on the ground of apprehended bias. WorkCover contends that the application was made without reasonable ground (SUS5).

83. On 13 January 2012, Olsson AJ declined to disqualify himself.

84. On 13 January 2012, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal an application pursuant to section 88H of the Compensation Act to set aside the March 2001 judgment of McCouaig DP and September 2001 judgment of the Full Bench of the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal (7089 of 1999). The application was supported by an affidavit. The application has not yet been heard. WorkCover contends that the proceeding was instituted without reasonable ground and should be stayed (RED10).

85. On 1 February 2012, Deputy President Judge Farrell dismissed Mr Moore-McQuillan’s appeal against McCouaig DP’s March 2001 judgment and the Full Bench’s September 2001 judgment (7089 of 1999) (RED8).

86. On 10 February 2012, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of appeal against Farrell DPJ’s judgment. WorkCover contends that the appeal was instituted without reasonable ground (RED9).

87. In May 2012, Mr Moore-McQuillan applied to Gilchrist DPJ, and Deputy President Judges Hannon and Lieschke that they disqualify themselves from hearing his appeal against Farrell DPJ’s judgment. WorkCover contends that the application was made without reasonable ground (RED11).

88. On 2 April and 26 July 2012, Olsson AJ delivered reasons for judgment in consolidated file 680 of 2003 and other matters:

    1.On Mr Moore-McQuillan’s 21 November 2001 notice of dispute, Olsson AJ set aside WorkCover’s 1 November 2001 determination discontinuing weekly payments (8468 of 2001).

    2.On Mr Moore-McQuillan’s 21 February 2002 notice of dispute, Olsson AJ affirmed WorkCover’s determinations dated 20 and 27 February 2002 suspending and discontinuing weekly payments pursuant to sections 38(6) and 36(1)(f) respectively (927 of 2002) (SUS1).

    3.On Mr Moore-McQuillan’s notices of dispute in 5488, 5493, 5497 and 5498 of 1998 relating to three toes of his left foot and left and right leg scarring disfigurement, Olsson AJ set aside WorkCover’s determinations.

    4.On Mr Moore-McQuillan’s notices of dispute in 5490, 5494, 5496 and 5499 to 5510 of 1998 and 6484 of 2001, Olsson AJ affirmed WorkCover’s determinations (PERM1 to PERM10).

    5.On Mr Moore-McQuillan’s notices of dispute in 2841 to 2843, 2845 to 2848, 2851 to 2853, 2855, 2860 to 2862 and 2864 of 2004 and 2238 of 2005, Olsson AJ affirmed WorkCover’s determinations (STRESS1 to STRESS16).

1. On the face of Mr Moore-McQuillan’s application and supporting affidavit, it is not reasonably arguable that Mr Rorie’s evidence before Mr Harry SM amounts to “fresh evidence” as described above. The set aside application was instituted without reasonable ground. It is appropriate to stay this proceeding.

   Application to set aside against Review Officer Pope’s decision etc (WI12)

2. On 25 May 2012, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal an application for directions under section 88H of the Compensation Act seeking to set aside:

   (a)     Review Officer Pope’s October 1995 decision;

   (b)    Parsons DPJ’s May 1997 decision:

   (c)     Parsons DPJ’s November 1998 decision; and

   (d)    McCusker DPJ’s July 2003 decision (WI12).

3. The application was made on the ground that Mr Moore-McQuillan’s entitlements should have been calculated under subsection 4(7) of the Compensation Act by reference to:

   1.the Retail Industrial Award for work performed as a sports shop manager ($912.42 for 54 hours per week);

   2.the Ports Corp Enterprise Bargaining Agreement for duties performed as a scuba diver ($846.54 for 40 hours per week); and

   3.the value of living in accommodation ($120 per week).

4. The application was supported by a 14 page affidavit. The affidavit did not exhibit the Retail Industrial Award in force as at September 1990 or the Ports Corp Enterprise Bargaining Agreement in force as at September 1990. It did not depose to facts which would demonstrate that he, his employer and his duties were covered by the Retail Industrial Award or the Ports Corp Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. It did not depose to his employment duties within the dive shop so as to demonstrate that he was performing the duties of a “sports shop manager” within the meaning of the Retail Industrial Award or to his employment duties as a diving instructor so as to demonstrate that he was performing the duties of a “scuba diver” within the meaning of the Ports Corp Enterprise Bargaining Agreement.

5. Mr Moore-McQuillan’s affidavit did not depose to his having worked 54 hours per week in the dive shop or 40 hours per week as a diving instructor between the commencement of his employment in March 1990 and his injury on 9 September 1990. It did not exhibit any records kept by him or by Wolf Dive of the hours worked by him over that period. It referred obliquely to a calculation by SA WorkSafe but did not depose to details of the calculation or exhibit the calculation. It did not reconcile the amounts claimed to have been payable with the payments set out in Review Officer Pope’s judgment.

6. Mr Moore-McQuillan’s affidavit referred generally to information being provided to WorkCover without exhibiting that information or deposing to the details of that information. It did not depose to the terms of Mr Moore-McQuillan’s employment or exhibit any written contract of employment or other documentary evidence of its terms and did not depose to facts by reason of which it was a term of his contract of employment that he be provided with free lodging. It referred obliquely to his becoming aware of his entitlement to compensation by reference to the awards but did not identify when or how he became so aware or satisfactorily explain the delay between his becoming so aware and making the set aside application.

7. Assuming that the Workers Compensation Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 88H of the Compensation Act to set aside a decision of a Review Officer if satisfied that it was erroneous, in the absence of an affidavit addressing the matters summarised in the previous paragraphs, there is no basis on which the Tribunal could be satisfied that Review Officer Pope’s October 1995 decision was erroneous.

8. In any event, the Workers Compensation Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 88H of the Compensation Act to set aside a decision of a Review Officer or of the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

9. The dispute resolution mechanism under the Compensation Act up to 2 June 1996 comprised a review by a Review Officer, a right of appeal to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal and in turn a right of appeal with leave on a question of law to the Full Court of the Supreme Court. With effect on 3 June 1996, a new dispute resolution mechanism was substituted.[72] A new Workers Compensation Tribunal was substituted for the old Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal under the previous regime. The new dispute resolution mechanism comprised initial reconsideration of the decision by WorkCover, followed if necessary by conciliation by a conciliation and arbitration officer (CAO), followed if necessary by referral to arbitration by a CAO or judicial determination by a presidential member of the Workers Compensation Tribunal. There was a right of appeal to the Full Bench of the Tribunal from a judicial determination by a presidential member on a question of law. Initially, there was no right of appeal from the Full Bench to the Full Court of the Supreme Court but from 1 January 2009 there was a limited right of appeal with permission on a question of law. Transitional provisions provided that proceedings commenced before 3 June 1996 under the previous regime were required to be continued and completed under the previous regime.[73] 

   [72] Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Dispute Resolution) Amendment Act 1995 (SA); Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Dispute Resolution) Amendment Act 1996 (SA).

   [73] Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Dispute Resolution) Amendment Act 1996 (SA) s 6(b) introducing replacement ss 17(4) and (5) into the 1995 Act.

10. Section 88H was one of the provisions introduced into the Compensation Act in 1996 as part of the new dispute resolution mechanism. It provided:

    88H—Power to set aside judgments or orders

    (1)The Tribunal may amend or set aside a judgment or order of the Tribunal—

    (a)     by consent of the parties; or

    (b)     in order to correct an error; or

    (c)     if the interests of justice require that the judgment or order be amended or set aside.

    (2)The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised by the President or a presidential member or conciliation officer to whom the President has delegated the power.

11. Section 3(1) defined “Tribunal” to mean the Workers Compensation Tribunal. The Workers Compensation Tribunal had no jurisdiction under section 88H to amend or set aside a decision of a Review Officer or of the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

12. The set aside application was instituted without reasonable ground. It is appropriate to stay this proceeding.

    Appeal against Olsson AJ’s 2012 decisions

13. On 26 July 2012, Olsson AJ made the following orders adverse to Mr Moore-McQuillan:

    (a)On Mr Moore-McQuillan’s 21 February 2002 notice of dispute, Olsson AJ affirmed WorkCover’s February 2002 determinations suspending and discontinuing weekly payments pursuant to sections 38(6) and 36(1)(f) respectively (927 of 2002) (SUS1).

    (b)On Mr Moore-McQuillan’s notices of dispute in 5489, 5490, 5494, 5496 and 5499 to 5510 of 1998 and 6484 of 2001, Olsson AJ affirmed WorkCover’s January 1998 and 2001 determinations rejecting his claims for lump sum compensation for permanent disabilities under section 43 of the Compensation Act (PERM1 to PERM10).

    (c)On Mr Moore-McQuillan’s notices of dispute in 2841 to 2843, 2845 to 2848, 2851 to 2853, 2855, 2860 to 2862 and 2864 of 2004 and 2238 of 2005, Olsson AJ affirmed WorkCover’s July 1997 and March 2005 determinations rejecting his claims for compensation for stress, anxiety and depression caused by his employment (STRESS1 to STRESS16).

14. On 21 May 2012, Mr Moore-McQuillan filed in the Workers Compensation Tribunal a notice of appeal against Olsson AJ’s judgment. The appeal has not yet been heard. Technically the appeal was premature because Olsson AJ did not make orders until 26 July 2012 but WorkCover does not contend that the appeal was instituted without reasonable ground for this reason but rather by reference to the merits of the appeal on questions of law.

    Appeal against affirmation of suspension and discontinuance determinations (SUS6)

15. By his notice of appeal, Mr Moore-McQuillan appeals against Olsson AJ’s decision affirming WorkCover’s February 2002 suspension and discontinuance determinations (SUS6). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted this appeal without reasonable ground.

16. The grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal are unsatisfactory and do not disclose a reasonably arguable case that Olsson AJ made an error of law. However, there is a prospect that Mr Moore-McQuillan would be permitted to amend them if he has a tenable ground of appeal on a question of law.

17. In relation to WorkCover’s suspension determination made on 21 February 2002, Olsson AJ did not address the exercise of the discretion to suspend weekly payments as opposed to the enlivening of that discretion. In the absence of the transcript of evidence before and submissions to Olsson AJ, it is not possible to determine that it is not reasonably arguable by Mr Moore-McQuillan that Olsson AJ made an error of law by not addressing the exercise of the discretion.

18. In relation to WorkCover’s discontinuance determination made on 27 February 2002, Olsson AJ did not address the discontinuance determination as opposed to the suspension determination. It may be that a finding of breach of the mutuality obligation under section 36(1) was inevitable given the findings of fact made by Olsson AJ and the conclusion reached by Olsson AJ that Mr Moore-McQuillan refused to submit to a medical examination in breach of a requirement under subsection 38(5) but the fact remains that Olsson AJ did not address this issue in his Honour’s reasons for judgment. More importantly, Olsson AJ did not address the exercise of the discretion to discontinue weekly payments. In the absence of the transcript of evidence before and submissions to Olsson AJ, it is not possible to determine that it is not reasonably arguable by Mr Moore-McQuillan that Olsson AJ made an error of law by not addressing the enlivening or exercising of the discretion to discontinue weekly payments.

19. WorkCover has failed to demonstrate that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted the appeal against Olsson AJ’s decision affirming WorkCover’s February 2002 suspension and discontinuance determinations without reasonable ground.

    Appeal against affirmation of permanent disability determinations (PERM11)

20. By his notice of appeal, Mr Moore-McQuillan appeals against Olsson AJ’s decision affirming WorkCover’s January 1998 and 2001 determinations rejecting his claims for lump sum compensation for permanent disabilities under section 43 of the Compensation Act (PERM11). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted this appeal without reasonable ground.

21. The grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal are unsatisfactory and do not disclose a reasonably arguable case that Olsson AJ made an error of law. However, there is a prospect that Mr Moore-McQuillan would be permitted to amend them if he has a tenable ground of appeal on a question of law.

22. I have concluded at [635] to [696] above that Mr Moore-McQuillan’s notices of dispute in respect of two of the claims (sexual intercourse and tooth) were instituted without reasonable ground and that WorkCover has failed to prove that the balance of the notices of dispute were instituted without reasonable ground. In respect of the sexual intercourse and tooth claims, the appeal was also instituted without reasonable ground and ought to be stayed. In respect of the balance of the claims, I do not have sufficient information to assess Mr Moore-McQuillan’s prospects of success in establishing that Olsson AJ made an error of law. In the exercise of my discretion, I do not stay the appeal in respect of those claims. It does not follow that, insofar as I do not stay the appeal, Mr Moore-McQuillan has a reasonably arguable appeal or that the appeal is not vexatious.

    Appeal against affirmation of stress claim determinations (STRESS17)

23. By his notice of appeal, Mr Moore-McQuillan appeals against Olsson AJ’s decision affirming WorkCover’s July 1997 and March 2005 determinations rejecting his claims for compensation for stress, anxiety and depression caused by his employment (STRESS17). WorkCover contends that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted this appeal without reasonable ground.

24. The grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal are unsatisfactory and do not disclose a reasonably arguable case that Olsson AJ made an error of law. However, there is a prospect that Mr Moore-McQuillan would be permitted to amend them if he has a tenable ground of appeal on a question of law.

25. I have concluded at [560] to [634] above that Mr Moore-McQuillan’s notices of dispute in respect of seven of the claims (Coulter 1991, Thompson, Brown, 18 March stalker, thugs, 24 March stalker and 7 April stalker) were instituted without reasonable ground and that WorkCover has failed to prove that the remaining notices of dispute were instituted without reasonable ground. In respect of the seven claims, the appeal was also instituted without reasonable ground and ought to be stayed. In respect of the balance of the claims, I do not have sufficient information to assess Mr Moore-McQuillan’s prospects of success in establishing that Olsson AJ made an error of law. In the exercise of my discretion, I do not stay the appeal in respect of those claims. It does not follow that, insofar as I do not stay the appeal, Mr Moore-McQuillan has a reasonably arguable appeal or that the appeal is not vexatious.

    Conclusion

26. I make an order under section 39(1)(a) of the Act prohibiting Mr Moore-McQuillan from instituting further proceedings in a prescribed court within the meaning of section 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) without the permission of the Supreme Court.

27. I make an order under section 39(1)(b) of the Act staying all existing proceedings which have been instituted by Mr Moore-McQuillan in a prescribed court within the meaning of section 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) except his appeal dated 21 May 2012 against orders 2, 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11 and order 4 in respect only of files 2842 of 2004, 2845 of 2004, 2847 of 2004, 2853 of 2004, 2855 of 2004, 2860 of 2004, 2861 of 2004 and 2238 of 2005 made by Olsson AJ on 26 July 2012 in consolidated file 680 of 2003.

28. I give Mr Moore-McQuillan liberty to apply in respect of any existing proceedings the subject of the order in the previous paragraph other than the proceedings referred to at [1002] to [1034] above.

29. I will hear the parties as to costs. 

    Table of Proceedings

No	Court	Action no	App	Begin	End	Judge	Proceeding	Vexatious
EMP1	IRC	134 of 98	Application against WorkCover for superannuation	8.4.98	31.3.99	Cunningham IM	Yes	Yes
EMP2	IRC	135 of 98	Application against Wolf Dive for superannuation	8.4.98	31.3.99	Cunningham IM	Yes	Yes
EMP3	IRC	134 of 98	Appeal against Cunningham IM’s 31.3.99 judgment dismissing application for super from WorkCover (EMP1)	29.10.99	14.11.01	SJ Jennings	Yes	Yes
EMP4	IRC	135 of 98	Appeal against Cunningham IM’s 31.3.99 judgment dismissing application for super from Wolf Dive (EMP2)	29.10.99	14.11.01	SJ Jennings	Yes	Yes
EMP5	IRC	134 of 98	Appeal against SJ Jennings’ 14.11.01 refusal re WorkCover (EMP3)	2001	18.10.02	Full Court	Yes	Yes
EMP6	IRC	135 of 98	Appeal against SJ Jennings’ 14.11.01 refusal re Wolf Dive (EMP4)	2001	18.10.02	Full Court	Yes	Yes
EMP7	DC	1567 of 01	Appeal against Master Norman’s 12.7.02 summary dismissal of action against Seidel	2002	20.12.02	Judge Anderson	Yes	Not proved
EMP8	SC	213 of 05	Appeal against Master Lunn’s 15.4.05 striking out of judicial review proceeding – IRC decisions re WorkCover super calculations	2.5.05	22.12.05	Full Court	Yes	Yes
WI1	WCAT	22W/97	Appeal against RO Pope’s 13.10.95 decision re employment package	26.2.97	2.5.97	Parsons DPJ	Yes	No
WI2	WCAT	65W/97	2nd Appeal against RO Lovering’s 27.8.91 decision re employment package	6.5.97	6.11.98	Parsons DPJ	Yes	Yes
WI3	SC	1512 of 98	Application for leave to appeal against Parsons DPJ’s 6.11.98 decision (WI2)	11.98 10.12.98	27.11.98 7.7.00	Millhouse J Full Court	Yes	Yes
WI4	WCT	1623 of 97	Appeal to Full Bench against Olsson AJ’s 23.4.04 judgment re underpayment of weekly income	2004	30.8.06	Full Bench	Yes	Yes
WI5	WCAT	4711 of 03	3rd Appeal against RO Lovering’s 1991 decision	6.7.03	31.7.03	McCusker DPJ	Yes	Yes
WI6	WCAT	4719 of 03	2nd Appeal against RO Pope’s 1995 decision	6.7.03	31.7.03	McCusker DPJ	Yes	Not proved
WI7	SC	1113 of 03	Application for leave to appeal against McCusker DPJ’s 31.7.03 dismissals of appeals (WI5 and WI6)	22.8.03 2003	22.8.03 2.10.03	Perry J Full Court	Yes	Yes
WI8	SC	215 of 05	Appeal against Master Lunn’s 15.4.05 striking out of judicial review proceeding – WorkCover and super calculations	2.5.05	22.12.05	Full Court	Yes	Yes
WI9	SC	(4711 and 4119 of 03) 1113 of 03	Interlocutory application to reopen appeal against McCusker DPJ’s 31.7.03 judgments (WI7)	30.6.06	26.2.07	Perry J	Yes	Yes
WI10	SC	1113 of 03	Application for leave to appeal against Perry J’s 26.2.07 judgment dismissing appeal (WI9)	27.4.07 4.5.09	19.6.07 29.9.09	Layton J Full Court	Yes	Yes
WI11	SC	1113 of 03	Appeal against Master Lunn’s 15.9.08 weekly income directions	2008	28.5.10	Nyland J	Yes	Yes
WI12	WCAT	0542 of 95, 22W and 65W of 97 4711 and 4719 of 03	Application to set aside RO Pope’s 13.10.95 decision, Parsons DPJ’s 2.5.97 (WI1) and 6.11.98 (WI2) decisions, McCusker DPJ’s 31.7.03 (WI6) decision	25.5.12	Not heard	Not heard	Yes	Yes
RED1	WCT	6926 and 7089 of 99	Application for stay of proceedings re notices of dispute 3.12.99	17.5.00	14.7.00	McCouaig DP	No	N/A
RED2	WCT	6926 and 7089 of 99	Application to McCouaig DP to disqualify himself	31.7.00	7.8.00	McCouaig DP	No	N/A
RED3	WCT	6926 and 7089 of 99	Appeal against McCouaig DP’s 14.7.00 decision (RED1)	2000	4.10.00	Full Bench	Yes	Yes
RED4	WCT	6926 and 7089 of 99	Appeal against McCouaig DP’s 27.3.01 decision on reduction of weekly earnings	2001	6.9.01	Full Bench	Yes	Not proved
RED5	WCT	6926 and 7089 of 99	Application for stay of McCouaig DP’s 27.3.01 order on reduction of earnings	2001	4.5.01	Full Bench	No	N/A Not ulterior
RED6	WCT	7089 of 99	Appeal against McCouaig DP’s 13.9.01 costs order	2001	28.3.02	Full Bench	Yes	Yes
RED7	SC	1324 of 01	Appeal against McCouaig DP’s 27.3.01 judgment & Full Bench’s 6.9.01 judgment (RED3)	19.9.01	20.12.01	Williams J	Yes	Yes
RED8	WCT	7089 of 99	Appeal against McCouaig DP’s 27.03.01 and Full Bench’s 6.9.01 judgments	19.3.10	1.2.12	Farrell DPJ	Yes	Yes
RED9	WCT	7089 of 99	Appeal against Farrell DPJ’s 1.2.12 judgment (RED6)	10.2.12	5.12.13	Full Bench	Yes	Yes

RED10	WCT	7089 of 99	Application to set aside McCouaig DP’s 27.3.01 judgment and Full Bench’s 6.9.01 judgment	13.1.12	Not heard	Not heard	Yes	Yes
RED11	WCT	7089 of 99	Application to Gilchrist, Hannon and Lieschke DPJJ disqualify themselves (RED7)	15.5.12	19.10.12	Gilchrist, Hannon and Lieschke DPJJ	No	N/A
SUS1	WCT	927 of 02	Notice of dispute re WorkCover’s 20.2.02 suspension and discontinuance of weekly payments	21.2.02	2.4.12, 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
SUS2	WCT	680 of 03	Objection to admission of evidence surveillance videotapes (29.11.98 – 9.2.00)	5.11.04	25.1.05 8.2.05	Olsson AJ	No	N/A
SUS3	WCT	680 of 03	Application to Olsson AJ to direct WorkCover to produce legal privilege documents and disqualify himself	15.5.06	6.6.06	Olsson AJ	No	N/A
SUS4	WCT	680 of 03	Interlocutory application for WorkCover to pay for a lawyer	8.06	22.8.06	Olsson AJ	No	N/A
SUS5	WCT	680 of 03	Interlocutory application to Olsson AJ to disqualify himself	9.11.11	13.1.12	Olsson AJ	No	N/A
SUS6	WCT	927 of 02	Appeal against affirmation of WorkCover suspension and discontinuance determinations (SUS1)	21.5.12	Not heard	Not heard	Yes	Not proved
STRESS1	WCT	2841 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 6.2.97 – Stan Coulter  21.1.91	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
STRESS2	WCT	2842 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 6.2.97 – Eric Minden 21.1.91	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
STRESS3	WCT	2843 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 6.2.97 – Andrew Thompson 04.93	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
STRESS4	WCT	2845 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 6.2.97 – Sue Magtengaard 12.94	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
STRESS5	WCT	2846 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 10.2.97 – VACC staff 6.2.97	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
STRESS6	WCT	2847 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 20.2.97 – Keith Brown 19.2.97	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
STRESS7	WCT	2848 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 21.2.97 – Steve Georgiadis 20.2.97	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
STRESS8	WCT	2851 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 27.2.97 – Bob Morgan 26.2.97	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
STRESS9	WCT	2852 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 28.2.97 – Kathy Power and Steve Georgiadis 28.2.97	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
STRESS10	WCT	2853 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 18.3.97 – stalker 18.3.97	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
STRESS11	WCT	2855 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 26.3.97 – two thugs 26.3.97	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
STRESS12	WCT	2860 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 24.3.97 – stalker 24.3.97	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
STRESS13	WCT	2861 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 7.4.97 – stalker 7.4.97	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
STRESS14	WCT	2862 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 14.5.97 – WorkCover, VACC and Donaldson Walsh 14.5.97	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
STRESS15	WCT	2864 of 04	Notice of dispute re Stress lodged 15.5.97 – Donaldson Walsh staff 15.5.97	29.12.97	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
STRESS16	WCT	2238 of 05	Notice of dispute re WorkCover’s 31.3.05 determination – Stan Coulter	6.4.05	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved

STRESS17	WCT	STRESS1-STRESS16	Appeal against Olsson AJ’s 2.4.12 judgments	21.5.12	Not heard	Not heard	Yes	Part Balance not proved
PERM1	WCT	5489 of 98	Notice of dispute re WorkCover’s 30.1.98 determinations – sexual intercourse	6.2.98	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
PERM2	WCT	5490 of 98	Notice of dispute re WorkCover’s 30.1.98 determinations – teeth	6.2.98	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
PERM3	WCT	5494 and 5496 of 98	Notices of dispute re WorkCover’s 30.1.98 determinations – left ankle x2	6.2.98	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
PERM4	WCT	5499 and 5500 of 98	Notices of dispute re WorkCover’s 30.1.98 determinations – right ankle x2	6.2.98	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
PERM5	WCT	5501 and 5502 of 98	Notices of dispute re WorkCover’s 30.1.98 determinations – right ankle x2	6.2.98	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
PERM6	WCT	5503 and 5504 of 98	Notices of dispute re WorkCover’s 30.1.98 determinations – lower/lumbar spine x2	6.2.98	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
PERM7	WCT	5505 and 5506 of 98	Notices of dispute re WorkCover’s 30.1.98 determinations – left hip x2	6.2.98	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
PERM8	WCT	5507 and 5508 of 98	Notices of dispute re WorkCover’s 30.1.98 determinations – right hip x2	6.2.98	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
PERM9	WCT	5509 and 5510 of 98	Notices of dispute re WorkCover’s 30.1.98 determinations – left lower ribs x2	6.2.98	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
PERM10	WCT	6484 of 01	Notice of dispute – right elbow – 24.7.01	2001	2.4.12; 26.7.12	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
PERM11	WCT	PERM1-PERM10	Appeal against Olsson AJ’s 2.4.12 judgments	21.5.12	Not heard	Not heard	Yes	Part Balance not proved
VAR1	WCT	680 of 03 (5487 of 98)	Application for interest on $11,832.77  under Thompson DP’s 19.1.98 determination	1998	2.7.04	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
VAR2	WCT	5801-5802; 5804-5819; 5823-5827 of 98 (consolidated 680 of 03)	23 expedited decision matters	1998	2.7.04	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
VAR3	5492 and/or 7760 of 01	Notice of dispute claiming late payment interest on maintenance payment	2001	23.4.04 2.7.04	Olsson AJ	Yes	Not proved
VAR4	WCT	7493 of 00; 1200, 1679 and 2176 of 01	Application to Thompson DP to disqualify himself from hearing interlocutory matters	27.8.01	8.11.01	Thompson DP	No	N/A
VAR5	WCT	7493 of 00 1200, 1679, 2176 of 01	Appeal against Thompson DP’s 8.11.01 refusal to disqualify himself (VAR4)	2001	20.3.03	Full Bench	Yes	Yes
VAR6	WCT	8476 of 01	Notice of dispute – WorkCover’s determination rejecting PADI 2001/02	21.11.01	2.7.04	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
VAR7	WCT	1303 of 02	Notice of dispute – WorkCover’s determination rejecting PADI 2002/03	28.2.03	2.7.04	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
VAR8	WCT	8704 of 03	Notice of dispute – WorkCover’s determination rejecting PADI 2003/04	12.03	2.7.04	Olsson AJ	Yes	Yes
FOI1	SC	1556 of 97	Notice of appeal re Judge Allan’s 29.10.97 judgment dismissing FOI application and payment of costs	12.11.97 1998	5.3.98 20.10.98	Nyland J Full Court	Yes	Yes
FOI2	SC	1343 of 99	Appeal against Judge Allan’s 18.9.98 costs order	1998	24.3.00	Debelle J	Yes	Yes

FOI3	SC	1343 of 99	Application for leave to appeal against Debelle J’s 24.3.00 dismissal (FOI2)	2000 18.5.00	2.5.00 2.6.00	Debelle J Full Court	Yes	Yes
FOI4	DC	1035 of 97	Appeal against Master Norman’s 7.5.02 refusal to disqualify himself	2002	21.6.02	Judge Bishop	Yes	Yes
DIS1	SC	830 of 96	Appeal against 13.3.96 dishonesty convictions	27.3.96 1997 1997	2.8.96 23.5.97 20.7.97	Perry J Perry J Full Court	Yes	Yes
DIS2	SC	507 of 98	Appeal against Ms Hayes SM’s 31.3.98 dismissal of application to set aside 13.3.96 convictions	4.98	6.5.98	Lander J	Yes	Yes
DIS3	SC	749 of 98	Appeal against Mr Gurry SM’s 24.4.98 refusal of extension of time to pay and costs order	1998	8.7.98	Debelle J	Yes	Yes
DIS4	SC	507 of 98	Application for leave to appeal against Lander J’s 6.5.98 dismissal of appeal (DIS2)	3.7.00	17.7.00	Full Court	Yes	Yes
DIS5	SC	251 of 04	Appeal against Mr Harry SM’s 6.2.04 and 13.2.04 convictions, sentence and orders	2004	21.1.05	Anderson J	Yes	Yes
DIS6	SC	251 of 04	Application for leave to appeal against Anderson J’s 21.1.05 dismissal of appeal (DIS9)	2005	11.4.05	Full Court	Yes	Yes
DIS7	SC	214 of 05	Appeal against Master Lunn’s 15.4.05 order striking out judicial review proceeding re 13.3.96 convictions	2.5.05	22.12.05	Full Court	Yes	Yes
DIS8	SC	830 of 96	Interlocutory application to reopen 27.3.96 appeal against 13.3.96 convictions (DIS1)	14.6.06	26.2.07	Perry J	Yes	Yes
DIS9	SC	830 of 96	Application for leave to appeal against Perry J’s 26.2.07 dismissal of appeal (DIS5)	27.4.07 4.5.09	19.6.07 29.9.09	Layton J Full Court	Yes	Yes
DIS10	SC	680 of 96	Appeal against Master Lunn’s 15.9.08 direction to Registrar to reject application against 03.96 dishonesty convictions	2008	28.5.10	Nyland J	Yes	Yes
RO1	SC	748 of 98	Appeal against Mr Field SM’s 19.12.97 costs order	4.5.98	27.11.98	Debelle J	Yes	Yes
RO2	SC	748 of 98	Application for leave to appeal to Full Court against Debelle J’s 27.11.98 judgment (RO1)	10.12.98 13.3.00 19.4.02	29.2.00 7.7.00 1.8.02	Debelle J Full Court Full Court	Yes	Yes
AST1	SC	240 of 97	Appeal seeking extension against 22.3.96 RO/assault/resist police convictions	22.3.97	17.2.98, 25.2.98	Duggan J	Yes	Yes
AST2	SC	240 of 97	Application for leave to appeal against Duggan J’s 17.2.98 dismissal of appeal against assault/resist police convictions (AST1)	1998 31.3.98 28.5.02	17.3.98 7.7.00 1.8.02	Duggan J Full Court Full Court	Yes	Yes
AST3	SC	71 of 00	Appeal against Mr Field SM’s 24.1.00 refusal of adjournment of trial	24.01.00	25.1.00	Mullighan J	Yes	Yes
AST4	SC	193 of 00	Appeal against 17.2.00 Mr Field SM’s conviction and RO re Mr Rice	2000	3.4.01	Bleby J	Yes	Yes
AST5	SC	321 of 02	Appeal against Ms Bolton SM’s 22.2.02 conviction of assaulting Mr Downs in elevator	2002	27.6.02 25.10.02	Mullighan J	Yes	Yes
AST6	SC	193 of 00	Application for leave to appeal against Bleby J’s 3.4.01 dismissal (AST4)	4.3.02 2002	22.3.02 24.5.02	Bleby J Full Court	Yes	Yes
AST7	SC	1354 of 08	Appeal against Mr Bennett SM’s 27.5.08 conviction: assaulting Mr Downs on 12.11.03	28.8.08	28.5.10	Nyland J	Yes	Yes
AST8	SC	1355 of 08	Appeal against Mr Ward ASM’s 6.12.07 conviction for occasioning bodily harm to Mr Webb on 21.4.04	28.8.08	28.5.10	Nyland J	Yes	Not proved
MISC1	SC	848 of 98	Appeal against Ms O’Connor SM’s 21.4.98 dismissal of complaint re Millikan	1998	1.9.98	Bleby J	Yes	Yes
MISC2	SC	298 of 07	Application to Nyland J to disqualify herself from contempt proceedings	6.7.07	8.8.07	Nyland J	No	N/A
MISC3	SC	298 of 07	Appeal against the revocation of suspension of good behaviour bond by Nyland J 16.12.08	15.1.09	4.9.09	Full Court	Yes	Yes