Workers' Compensation Regulator v Pryszlak - [2018] QCA 157

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Pryszlak [2018] QCA 157

PARTIES:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR
(appellant)
v
JOHN WALTER PRYSZLAK
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 13525 of 2017
SC No 273 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton – [2017] QSC 286

DELIVERED ON:

6 July 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser and Philippides JJA

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS – where the respondent claimed to have injured his thumb at work – where the respondent’s application for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 was rejected – where an application for a review of such a rejection must be made within three months of receipt of notice of the rejection – where the respondent applied for review out of time – where an extension of time to file an application for review can be granted if “special circumstances” exist justifying the grant of an extension – where the respondent’s application for an extension of time was refused – where the respondent successfully sought judicial review of the refusal of an extension of time – where the respondent was, inter alia, denied procedural fairness through the failure of the original decision-maker to show him a letter from his employer maligning his character and casting doubt on whether he had been injured at all – whether the respondent’s application raised circumstances that were capable of being regarded as special, such as to warrant the granting of an extension of time under s 542 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS – where information was provided in support of the respondent’s application for an extension of time within which to review the decision of the original decision-maker that was not available to the original decision maker – where, on judicial review, it was found that the appellant failed to consider the merits of the respondent’s claim – whether the failure of the appellant to consider the merits of the respondent’s claim involved a failure to consider relevant matter which thereby vitiated the appellant’s decision

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 5, s 542, s 545

COUNSEL:

P J Dunning QC SG, with C Hartigan, for the appellant
R D Green for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the appellant
Grant & Simpson Lawyers for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: The respondent claimed to have injured his thumb at work. He made an application for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 on 16 July 2015. His application was rejected. The Act provides for a right of review of such a rejection, however the application for review must be made within three months of receipt of notice of the rejection. The respondent applied for review well after the three month period had expired. An extension…

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 Pryszlak

Details

AGLC: Workers' Compensation Regulator v Pryszlak [2018] QCA 157
Case: [2018] QCA 157
Decision Date: 6 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Workers' Compensation Regulator (Regulator) sought to overturn a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had granted the respondent, Pryszlak, judicial review of the Regulator's decision to deny an extension of time for Pryszlak to appeal a rejection of his compensation claim. Pryszlak had claimed to have injured his thumb at work and had lodged a compensation claim under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The Regulator rejected the claim, and Pryszlak applied for review, but did so outside of the three-month statutory deadline. The Regulator refused Pryszlak's application for an extension of time, and Pryszlak sought judicial review of that refusal. The AAT found that the Regulator had denied Pryszlak procedural fairness by not showing him a letter from his employer, and granted Pryszlak judicial review of the Regulator's decision.

The court was required to determine whether the Regulator's decision to refuse an extension of time was reviewable on the grounds that the Regulator failed to consider relevant information, and whether the circumstances of the case were such that an extension of time ought to have been granted. The court considered whether the Regulator's failure to consider the contents of a letter from Pryszlak's employer amounted to a jurisdictional error, and whether the Regulator had failed to consider relevant information. The court also considered whether the circumstances of the case were such that an extension of time should have been granted, given that the Regulator had not considered relevant information.

The court found that the Regulator's failure to consider the contents of the employer's letter amounted to a jurisdictional error, as it had not considered relevant information. The court found that the Regulator had failed to consider the merits of Pryszlak's claim, and that this failure involved a failure to consider a relevant matter. The court also found that the circumstances of the case were such that an extension of time should have been granted, given that the Regulator had not considered relevant information. The court held that the AAT was correct to grant Pryszlak judicial review of the Regulator's decision.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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:	Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Pryszlak [2018] QCA 157
PARTIES:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR (appellant) v JOHN WALTER PRYSZLAK (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 13525 of 2017 SC No 273 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton – [2017] QSC 286
DELIVERED ON:	6 July 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 May 2018
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser and Philippides JJA
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS – where the respondent claimed to have injured his thumb at work – where the respondent’s application for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 was rejected – where an application for a review of such a rejection must be made within three months of receipt of notice of the rejection – where the respondent applied for review out of time – where an extension of time to file an application for review can be granted if “special circumstances” exist justifying the grant of an extension – where the respondent’s application for an extension of time was refused – where the respondent successfully sought judicial review of the refusal of an extension of time – where the respondent was, inter alia, denied procedural fairness through the failure of the original decision-maker to show him a letter from his employer maligning his character and casting doubt on whether he had been injured at all – whether the respondent’s application raised circumstances that were capable of being regarded as special, such as to warrant the granting of an extension of time under s 542 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS – where information was provided in support of the respondent’s application for an extension of time within which to review the decision of the original decision-maker that was not available to the original decision maker – where, on judicial review, it was found that the appellant failed to consider the merits of the respondent’s claim – whether the failure of the appellant to consider the merits of the respondent’s claim involved a failure to consider relevant matter which thereby vitiated the appellant’s decision Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 5, s 542, s 545
COUNSEL:	P J Dunning QC SG, with C Hartigan, for the appellant R D Green for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the appellant Grant & Simpson Lawyers for the respondent