WorkCover Queensland v Wallaby Grip Limited - [2021] QCA 11

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

WorkCover Queensland v Wallaby Grip Limited & Anor [2021] QCA 11

PARTIES:

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
ABN 40 577 162 756
(applicant)
v
WALLABY GRIP LIMITED
(first respondent)
WALLABY GRIP (BAE) PTY LIMITED (In Liq)
ACN 008 453 325
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8563 of 2020
DC No 437 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – [2020] QDC 154 (Richards DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

5 February 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 October 2020

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philippides JJA and Crow J

ORDERS:

1.   Grant leave to appeal.

2.   Allow the appeal.

3.   Paragraph 15 of the Further Amended Defence of the Second Respondent as the Second Defendant is struck out.

4.   Paragraph 16 of the Further Amended Defence of the First Respondent as the First Defendant is struck out.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECISION – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where the applicants brought an application in the District Court of Queensland to, inter alia, have allegations of law in the respondents’ amended pleadings struck out – where the primary judge did not make a determination on that issue – where the applicants seek leave to appeal under s 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – whether an important question of law is raised – whether leave to appeal should be granted

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – INTERPRETATION – GENERAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENTS – GENERAL MATTERS – where the applicant, WorkCover Queensland, paid statutory compensation to an injured employee – where the injured employee undertook work in both Queensland and New South Wales – where the applicant commenced proceedings against two employers pursuant to s 207B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) to recover the statutory compensation paid – where the respondents filed amended pleadings which made an allegation of law that, due to s 113(1) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), no right of recovery exists in respect to injuries sustained or contributed to by any employment in New South Wales – where the applicant seeks to have the relevant pleadings struck out on the basis that the allegation of law made by the respondents is incorrect – whether s 113(1) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) disentitles the applicant from a right of recovery for compensation paid in relation to injuries sustained or contributed to during employment in New South Wales under s 207B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 113, s 207B

Bird v The Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 1; [1988] HCA 23, cited
Harradine v Cockatoo Dockyard (2008) 5 DDCR 396; [2008] NSWDDT 8, cited
State of Queensland v Seltsam Pty Limited (2019)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read WorkCover Queensland v Wallaby Grip Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] QCA 11
Decision Date: 5 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

WorkCover Queensland, as the statutory workers’ compensation insurer, sought to recover compensation paid to an injured employee from two employers, Wallaby Grip Limited and another respondent. The dispute arose from the employee's work in both Queensland and New South Wales. WorkCover Queensland filed proceedings under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) to recover compensation from the employers. The respondents argued that WorkCover Queensland had no right to recover compensation for injuries sustained or contributed to by employment in New South Wales, citing section 113(1) of the Act. WorkCover Queensland applied to have certain allegations of law in the respondents’ pleadings struck out, but the primary judge did not rule on the issue. WorkCover Queensland subsequently applied for leave to appeal the primary judge's decision not to strike out the pleadings.

The central legal issues in this case were whether an important question of law was raised by the respondents’ allegation of law and, if so, whether leave to appeal should be granted. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of section 113(1) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) and its impact on WorkCover Queensland’s right to recover compensation for injuries sustained in New South Wales. The court had to determine whether the respondents’ allegation of law was correct and whether WorkCover Queensland was entitled to strike out the relevant pleadings.

The court held that the appeal raised an important question of law concerning the interpretation of section 113(1) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). It found that the respondents’ allegation of law was incorrect because section 113(1) did not disentitle WorkCover Queensland from a right of recovery under section 207B of the Act. The court reasoned that the statutory provisions did not preclude WorkCover Queensland from recovering compensation for injuries sustained or contributed to by employment in New South Wales. Therefore, the court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and ordered that specific paragraphs of the respondents’ pleadings be struck out.

The final orders were to grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and strike out paragraph 15 of the Further Amended Defence of the Second Respondent and paragraph 16 of the Further Amended Defence of the First Respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to appeal.

2. Allow the appeal.

3. Paragraph 15 of the Further Amended Defence of the Second Respondent as the Second Defendant is struck out.

4. Paragraph 16 of the Further Amended Defence of the First Respondent as the First Defendant is struck out.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	WorkCover Queensland v Wallaby Grip Limited & Anor [2021] QCA 11
PARTIES:	WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND ABN 40 577 162 756 (applicant) v WALLABY GRIP LIMITED (first respondent) WALLABY GRIP (BAE) PTY LIMITED (In Liq) ACN 008 453 325 (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 8563 of 2020 DC No 437 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – [2020] QDC 154 (Richards DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	5 February 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 October 2020
JUDGES:	Morrison and Philippides JJA and Crow J
ORDERS:	1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Allow the appeal. 3. Paragraph 15 of the Further Amended Defence of the Second Respondent as the Second Defendant is struck out. 4. Paragraph 16 of the Further Amended Defence of the First Respondent as the First Defendant is struck out.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECISION – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where the applicants brought an application in the District Court of Queensland to, inter alia, have allegations of law in the respondents’ amended pleadings struck out – where the primary judge did not make a determination on that issue – where the applicants seek leave to appeal under s 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – whether an important question of law is raised – whether leave to appeal should be granted WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – INTERPRETATION – GENERAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENTS – GENERAL MATTERS – where the applicant, WorkCover Queensland, paid statutory compensation to an injured employee – where the injured employee undertook work in both Queensland and New South Wales – where the applicant commenced proceedings against two employers pursuant to s 207B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) to recover the statutory compensation paid – where the respondents filed amended pleadings which made an allegation of law that, due to s 113(1) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), no right of recovery exists in respect to injuries sustained or contributed to by any employment in New South Wales – where the applicant seeks to have the relevant pleadings struck out on the basis that the allegation of law made by the respondents is incorrect – whether s 113(1) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) disentitles the applicant from a right of recovery for compensation paid in relation to injuries sustained or contributed to during employment in New South Wales under s 207B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 113, s 207B Bird v The Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 1; [1988] HCA 23, cited Harradine v Cockatoo Dockyard (2008) 5 DDCR 396; [2008] NSWDDT 8, cited State of Queensland v Seltsam Pty Limited (2019)…