Legal Research
Cases
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Maxwell

Workers' Compensation Regulator v Maxwell

Case [2025] QDC 150 23 October 2025

Workers' Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Maxwell [2025] QDC 150

PARTIES:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR

(appellant)

v

MAXWELL

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BD 795/25

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates court

DELIVERED ON:

23 October 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 July 2025

JUDGE:

Grigg DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The decision of the learned Magistrate is set aside.

2.   Parties will be heard on whether the Fraud Charge and Attempted Fraud Charge should proceed to be determined on the amended complaints and proposed orders.

3.   Parties will be heard on orders as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – NATURE OF APPEAL – where the appeal is brought under section 222(1) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) and section 579(5) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – OFFENCES – where numerous charges laid against the respondent concern a statutory workers' compensation claim – where the charges against the respondent concern fraud, attempted fraud and providing false and misleading information under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

MAGISTRATES – COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS – PARTICLARS AND CONTENT OF INITIATING PROCESS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES ––where the charges comprise of three separate complaints – where the learned Magistrate at first instance found that the fraud charges were not recurrent and bad for latent duplicity – where the learned Magistrate at first instance found that the charge of attempted fraud was bad for latent duplicity – whether the Magistrate made a legal error in the findings relating to duplicity

LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld)
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) (repealed)

Workers’ Compensation Act 1990 (Qld) (repealed)

CASES:

Biddle v Dimmock [1992] QCA 265

Coco v the Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1999) 179 CLR 427
Cohen v Macefield Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 95
Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman [1973] AC 584
Fahey v Keating [2002] QIC 61; (2003) 172 QGIG 78
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Hannes v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (No 2) [2006] NSWCCA 373; 165 A Crim R 151
Johnson v Miller [1937] HCA 77; (1937) 59 CLR 467
Jones v WorkCover Queensland [1999] QIC 63; (1999) 162 QGIG 333
McDonald v Higgins [2013] WASC 61; (2013) 227 A Crim R 130
McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255; [2018] 2 Qd R 612
Montgomery v Stewart [1967] HCA 11; (1967) 116 CLR 220
PPP v The Queen [2010] VSCA 110; (2010) 27 VR 68
R v BDJ [2020] QCA 27
R v Cramp [1999] NSWCCA 324; (1999) 110 A Crim R 198
R v Garget-Bennett [2010] QCA 231; [2013] 1 Qd R 547
R v Hamzy (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
R v Jayaweera [2022] QCA 103; (2022) 307 A Crim R 296
R v Leivers and Ballinger [1998] QCA 99

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Continue reading Workers' Compensation Regulator v Maxwell

Details

AGLC: Workers' Compensation Regulator v Maxwell [2025] QDC 150
Case: [2025] QDC 150
Decision Date: 23 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Workers' Compensation Regulator v Maxwell, the appellant sought to appeal a decision of the Magistrates Court of Queensland regarding charges of fraud, attempted fraud, and providing false and misleading information under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The respondent, Maxwell, was originally charged with these offences in relation to a statutory workers' compensation claim. The appeal was brought under section 222(1) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) and section 579(5) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the learned Magistrate made a legal error in finding that the fraud and attempted fraud charges were bad for latent duplicity. The court had to consider the particulars of the initiating process and the content of the charges, which comprised three separate complaints. The Magistrate found that the fraud charges were not recurrent and bad for latent duplicity, and that the charge of attempted fraud was bad for latent duplicity. The court had to determine if these findings were legally sound.

The court found that the Magistrate made a legal error in the findings relating to duplicity. The court set aside the decision of the learned Magistrate, finding that the findings regarding the fraud and attempted fraud charges were legally flawed. Consequently, the court ordered that the decision of the Magistrate be set aside. The court also directed that the parties be heard on whether the Fraud Charge and Attempted Fraud Charge should proceed to be determined on the amended complaints and proposed orders. Additionally, the court indicated that orders as to costs would be determined at a later stage.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the learned Magistrate is set aside.

2. Parties will be heard on whether the Fraud Charge and Attempted Fraud Charge should proceed to be determined on the amended complaints and proposed orders.

3. Parties will be heard on orders as to costs.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Workers' Compensation Regulator v Maxwell [2025] QDC 150

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 25 of 25 shown

R v BDJ
[2020] QCA 27 Para 2

…In R v BDJ [2020] QCA 27 Boddice J explained the importance of particulars as follows: “[98] Particularity of criminal conduct is essential to eliminate the risk of duplicity and to give an accused person sufficient indication of the allegations. A minimum requirement is that there be sufficient particularity in…
McDonald v Queensland Police Service
[2017] QCA 255 Para 3

…, factual, or discretionary error made by the court below.[3] [3] Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118; McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255; [2018] 2 Qd R 612, at 627 [47].…
McDonald v Higgins
[2013] WASC 61 Para 4

…In McDonald v Higgins [2013] WASC 61; (2013) 227 A Crim R 130 ( McDonald ), Edelman J (as his Honour then was) noted the application of the duplicity principle can involve fine questions of fact and degree.[11] In McDonald the activity comprised a continuous trespass from entry into the place without consent, bei…
R v Garget-Bennett
[2010] QCA 231 Para 11

…te) disclose more than one offence, although only one offence is charged?[2] If yes, are the charges bad for latent duplicity? [2] R v Garget-Bennett [2010] QCA 231; [2013] 1 Qd R 547.…
PPP v The Queen
[2010] VSCA 110 Para 1

…The charged offences must be properly particularised. Redlich JA in PPP v The Queen [2010] VSCA 110; (2010) 27 VR 68, explained the reasons for why proper particularisation of an offence is required:[25] (1) to enable the accused to exercise the right to object to evidence on the ground of relevance; (2) to permit…
Cohen v Macefield Pty Ltd
[2010] QCA 95 Para 10

…In Cohen v Macefield Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 95 ( Cohen ), Holmes JA (as her Honour then was) explained the answer to duplicity can be found by a determination of whether the relevant statute which creates the offence/s under consideration, creates a single offence or not. Holmes JA referred to Bray CJ in Romeyko v S…
Rixon v Thompson
[2008] VSC 232 Para 6

…The rule against duplicity should not be used in a way which results in the frustration of the due administration of justice. In Rixon v Thompson [2008] VSC 232; (2008) 185 A Crim R 517, Harper J warned:[37] “Despite the many good reasons for the existence of the rule against duplicity, it must not be allowed to…
Fox v Percy
[2003] HCA 22 Para 3

…e onus is on the appellant to demonstrate that there has been some legal, factual, or discretionary error made by the court below.[3] [3] Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118; McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255; [2018] 2 Qd R 612, at 627 [47].…
Victorian Workcover Authority v Esso Australia Ltd
[2001] HCA 53 Para 15

…With respect to principles of statutory interpretation, I note the words of Kirby J in Victorian Workcover Authority v Esso Australia Ltd [2001] HCA 53; (2001) 207 CLR 520 who cautioned against focussing on judicial exposition in the task of statutory interpretation. He said: “[63] […] it is important when a tas…
R v Cramp
[1999] NSWCCA 324 Para 16

…formulations of liability based on the same or substantially the same facts” not “alternative factual bases of liability”.[24] [24] R v Cramp [1999] NSWCCA 324; (1999) 110 A Crim R 198, [65].…
R v Leivers and Ballinger
[1998] QCA 99 Para 2

…However, substantially similar facts can be relied upon to found alternative legal liability.[36] [36] R v Leivers and Ballinger [1998] QCA 99; [1999] 1 Qd R 649.…
Walsh v Tattersall
[1996] HCA 26 Para 1

…ot determinative of any point of law that is relevant to the current charges. (d)the learned Magistrate did not refer to Walsh v Tattersall [1996] HCA 26; (1996) 188 CLR 77 ( Walsh v Tattersall ).…
Weinel v Fedcheshen
[1995] SASC 5216

…) 168 CLR 266 Walsh v Tattersall [1996] HCA 26; (1996) 188 CLR 77 Weinel v Fedcheshen [1995] SASC 5216; 65 SASR 156 SECONDARY SOURCES: Mark Lucraft (ed), Archbold 2025 (Thomson Reuters, 2025) Ross on Crime , (9 th ed, 2022, Thomson Reuters) COUNSEL: Appellant: E Cooper and C O’Neil Respondent: D V Nguyen and L…
Coco v the Queen
[1994] HCA 15 Para 8

…r exceptions or principles relating to the rule against duplicity have no relevance or role to play. The High Court made it clear in Coco v the Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427 that any statutory intention to override common law rights must be express and unambiguous.[30] [30] For example, see the Civil L…
Biddle v Dimmock
[1992] QCA 265

…sland Act 1996 (Qld) (repealed) Workers’ Compensation Act 1990 (Qld) (repealed) CASES: Biddle v Dimmock [1992] QCA 265 Coco v the Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1999) 179 CLR 427 Cohen v Macefield Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 95 Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman [1973] AC 584 Fahey v Keating [2002] QIC 61; (2003) 172 QGIG…
Queensland v The Commonwealth
[1989] HCA 36 Para 12

…The President then cited the passage from Jones and said: “It has to follow that each of the matters particularised should have been made the subject of a separate charge. (Arguably, the conduct at particular 1 and the conduct at particular 4 is recurrent within the meaning of s. 482(2)). The decisi…
Montgomery v Stewart
[1967] HCA 11 Para 11

…An example often referred to in relation to a prohibited act with more than one prescribed quality is that of Montgomery v Stewart [1967] HCA 11; (1967) 116 CLR 220.[20] That case concerned the issue of a company prospectus which contained a number of untrue or misleading statements. Although each misleading sta…
Johnson v Miller
[1937] HCA 77

…nes v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (No 2) [2006] NSWCCA 373; 165 A Crim R 151 Johnson v Miller [1937] HCA 77; (1937) 59 CLR 467 Jones v WorkCover Queensland [1999] QIC 63; (1999) 162 QGIG 333 McDonald v Higgins [2013] WASC 61; (2013) 227 A Crim R 130 McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255;…
Queensland v Commonwealth
[1977] HCA 60 Para 12

…ty in superior Courts, given per incuriam, or it be shown that some important principle was not adverted to, compare Queensland v. The Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 585 at 599 to 600 per Gibbs J. Here the case sought to be made is that the decision was given per incuriam. Strictly, His Honour did not overlook any decis…
S v the Queen
[1989] HCA 66

…49 R v Morrow and Flynn [1991] 2 Qd R 309 Romeyko v Samuels (1972) 2 SASR 529; 19 FLR 322 S v The Queen [1989] HCA 66; (1989) 168 CLR 266 Walsh v Tattersall [1996] HCA 26; (1996) 188 CLR 77 Weinel v Fedcheshen [1995] SASC 5216; 65 SASR 156 SECONDARY SOURCES: Mark Lucraft (ed), Archbold 2025 (Thomson Reuters, 202…
CLR 321, applied R v Jayaweera
[2022] QCA 103 Para 9

…Section 568(3) of the Criminal Code reflects situations where there is an overall scheme. However, the Court of Appeal in R v Jayaweera [2022] QCA 103; (2022) 307 A Crim R 296 made it clear that this section does not override “the reasons which underpin the basic requirement in a given case that each offence shou…
[1973] AC 584
[1973] AC 584 Para 17

…e offences could not be said to be the same offence. Connolly J referred to the decision of Lord Morris in Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman [1973] AC 584; [1972] 3 WLR 545; 56 Cr App R 766; [1972] 3 All ER 42 ( Merriman ). Connolly J had no objection to charging the incident as one offence, provided th…
[1972] 1 QB 489
[1972] 1 QB 489 Para 2

…d by applying common sense and by deciding what is fair in the circumstances . … I agree respectfully with Lord Widgery CJ [in Jemmison v Priddle [1972] 1 QB 489] that it will often be legitimate to bring a single charge in respect of what might be called one activity even though that activity may involve more tha…
Romeyko v Samuels
247 US 105

…and Ballinger [1998] QCA 99; [1999] 1 Qd R 649 R v Morrow and Flynn [1991] 2 Qd R 309 Romeyko v Samuels (1972) 2 SASR 529; 19 FLR 322 S v The Queen [1989] HCA 66; (1989) 168 CLR 266 Walsh v Tattersall [1996] HCA 26; (1996) 188 CLR 77 Weinel v Fedcheshen [1995] SASC 5216; 65 SASR 156 SECONDARY SOURCES: Mark Lucraft (…
[1972] 3 WLR 545
[1972] 3 WLR 545 Para 17

…d not be said to be the same offence. Connolly J referred to the decision of Lord Morris in Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman [1973] AC 584; [1972] 3 WLR 545; 56 Cr App R 766; [1972] 3 All ER 42 ( Merriman ). Connolly J had no objection to charging the incident as one offence, provided that it is always cl…

Legislation cited in this decision · 8

Justices Act 1886 (Qld)
43(1)(c) 2 mentions (from Para 7)
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
537 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 3)
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 8)
Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 (Qld)
161 1 mention (from Para 1)
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 5)
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Workers' Compensation Act 1990 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 5)

CITATION:	Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Maxwell [2025] QDC 150
PARTIES:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR (appellant) v MAXWELL (respondent)
FILE NO:	BD 795/25
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates court
DELIVERED ON:	23 October 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 July 2025
JUDGE:	Grigg DCJ
ORDER:	1. The decision of the learned Magistrate is set aside. 2. Parties will be heard on whether the Fraud Charge and Attempted Fraud Charge should proceed to be determined on the amended complaints and proposed orders. 3. Parties will be heard on orders as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – NATURE OF APPEAL – where the appeal is brought under section 222(1) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) and section 579(5) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – OFFENCES – where numerous charges laid against the respondent concern a statutory workers' compensation claim – where the charges against the respondent concern fraud, attempted fraud and providing false and misleading information under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) MAGISTRATES – COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS – PARTICLARS AND CONTENT OF INITIATING PROCESS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES ––where the charges comprise of three separate complaints – where the learned Magistrate at first instance found that the fraud charges were not recurrent and bad for latent duplicity – where the learned Magistrate at first instance found that the charge of attempted fraud was bad for latent duplicity – whether the Magistrate made a legal error in the findings relating to duplicity
LEGISLATION:	Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) Justices Act 1886 (Qld) Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) (repealed) Workers’ Compensation Act 1990 (Qld) (repealed)
CASES:	Biddle v Dimmock [1992] QCA 265 Coco v the Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1999) 179 CLR 427 Cohen v Macefield Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 95 Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman [1973] AC 584 Fahey v Keating [2002] QIC 61; (2003) 172 QGIG 78 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 Hannes v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (No 2) [2006] NSWCCA 373; 165 A Crim R 151 Johnson v Miller [1937] HCA 77; (1937) 59 CLR 467 Jones v WorkCover Queensland [1999] QIC 63; (1999) 162 QGIG 333 McDonald v Higgins [2013] WASC 61; (2013) 227 A Crim R 130 McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255; [2018] 2 Qd R 612 Montgomery v Stewart [1967] HCA 11; (1967) 116 CLR 220 PPP v The Queen [2010] VSCA 110; (2010) 27 VR 68 R v BDJ [2020] QCA 27 R v Cramp [1999] NSWCCA 324; (1999) 110 A Crim R 198 R v Garget-Bennett [2010] QCA 231; [2013] 1 Qd R 547 R v Hamzy (1994) 74 A Crim R 341 R v Jayaweera [2022] QCA 103; (2022) 307 A Crim R 296 R v Leivers and Ballinger [1998] QCA 99