WorkCover Queensland v Clements

[2001] QSC 48

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

WorkCover Queensland v Clements [2001] QSC 048

PARTIES:

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
PETER ALAN CLEMENTS
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

894/01

DIVISION:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 February 2001

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

1.  No order as to the costs of this application; and
2.  Each party have liberty to apply.

DECLARATIONS:

1. That in respect of the notice of claim dated 18 April 2000 and given by the respondent to the application on or about 20 April 2000, the respondent is entitled pursuant to s 342 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, to the benefit of the assumption that the proforma of the notice used by the applicant was lawfully approved for use under s 280 of the said Act;
2. That in the circumstances pursuant to s 282 of the said Act, the applicant gave notice to the respondent on 14 June 2000 that it was satisfied that the notice of claim complied with s 280 of the said Act, a conference of the parties under s 293 of the said Act has been lawfully held, and both the applicant and the respondent have made written final offers under s 294 of the said Act;
3. That each of the applicant and the respondent may take any further step in purported compliance with Chapter 5 of the 1996 Act on the footing that the said notice of claim dated 18 April 2000 was a valid and effective notice pursuant to the said Chapter 5.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – NOTICE OF ACCIDENT – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – PROCEDURE BEFORE HEARING – PROCEDURE – whether a s 280 Notice of WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 could be deemed to be used lawfully by virtue of s 342 of the Act, and whether those steps undertaken by parties through s 293 and s 294 of the Act were lawfully conducted as required by the Act.

Consequential orders based upon McCullagh v WorkCover Queensland 2001 QSC 029, 16 February 2001.

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996

McCullagh v WorkCover Queensland 2001 QSC 029
WorkCover Queensland v Zeller

COUNSEL:

David North for the applicant
Richard Douglas for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Tutt & Quinlan for the applicant
Shine Roche McGowan for the respondent

1. DOUGLAS J: This application was heard at the same time as application No 948 of 2001; McCullagh v WorkCover Queensland.  I gave judgment in that matter on 16 February 2001 sub nom McCullagh v WorkCover Queensland 2001 QSC 029 16 February 2001.

1. This application raises similar issues to those which arose in WorkCover Queensland v Zeller the judgment in which I also delivered today.

1. The relevant chronology in this case is as follows:

25 December 1998     Accident

18 April 2000 Section 280 Notice of Claim

20 April 2000 Section 280 Notice served on WorkCover

14 June 2000 WorkCover’s solicitors advise that s 280 Notice deemed to be compliant

13 July 2000              WorkCover’s solicitors provide documentary material pursuant to s 283.

24 October 2000        WorkCover gives written notice pursuant to s 285 with respect to liability and other matters as required.

20 November 2000     Decision in Scott v WorkCover delivered.

13 December 2000     Settlement conference pursuant to s 293 conducted but the matter did not resolve.

13 December 2000     Both claimant and WorkCover exchanged written final offers at conclusion of the conference pursuant to s 294.

23 January 2001 WorkCover’s solicitors confirmed in writing that the Notice given pursuant to s 280 was still deemed to be compliant, and that WorkCover waived any further or ongoing obligation to comply with s 280.

1. In this case the claimant (respondent) delivered a s 280 Notice which has, in my opinion, the same protection afforded by s 342 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (“the Act”) as that given in McCullagh (supra). In this case however, a settlement conference pursuant to s 293 has been conducted, but the matter did not resolve. Further, final written offers were exchanged at the conclusion of the conference pursuant to s 294. In my view those steps taken by the parties were lawfully conducted as required by the Act for the reasons I gave in McCullagh and Zeller supra.  Therefore I declare:

1. That in respect of the notice of claim dated 18 April 2000 and given by the respondent to the application on or about 20 April 2000, the respondent is entitled pursuant to s 342 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, to the benefit of the assumption that the proforma of the notice used by the applicant was lawfully approved for use under s 280 of the said Act;

2. That in the circumstances that pursuant to s 282 of the said Act the applicant gave notice to the respondent on 14 June 2000 that it was satisfied that the notice of claim complied with s 280 of the said Act, and that a conference of the parties under s 293 of the said Act has been lawfully held, and both the applicant and the respondent have made written final offers under s 294 of the said Act;

3. That each of the applicant and the respondent may take any further step in purported compliance with Chapter 5 of the Act on the footing that the said notice of claim dated 18 April 2000 was a valid and effective notice pursuant to the said Chapter 5.

I further order:

(i)        that there be no order as to the costs of this application; and

(ii)       that each party have liberty to apply.