DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Roos [2022] QDC 150
PARTIES:
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR
(Appellant)
v
KARA LOUISE ROOS
(Respondent)
FILE NO: D9/21
DIVISION:
Appeal
PROCEEDING:
ORIGINATING COURT:
Hervey Bay
DELIVERED ON:
28 June 2022
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
3 May 2022
JUDGE:
Jarro DCJ
ORDER:
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The order of the Magistrates Court made on 17 August 2021 be set aside.
3. The proceeding be remitted to the Magistrates Court for rehearing and determination according to law before a different Magistrate.
4. Unless either party applies for (or the parties otherwise agree to) a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment:
(a) the respondent will pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis;
(b) an indemnity certificate pursuant to sections 15(2) and 16(1)(a) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 is granted to the respondent in respect of the costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATES COURT – WORKER COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION – Whether the appellant has standing to appeal – whether the learned Magistrate erred in finding a no-case to answer of six charges - whether the respondent should be granted an indemnity certificate pursuant to s15(2) and 16(1)(a) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973
LEGISLATION:
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003
Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973
Justice Act 1886CASES:
Builders Licensing Board v Spurway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616
Walsh v Stephenson (1996) 68 IR 22
Du Preez v Chelden (2020) ICQ 8
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207COUNSEL: A Bain for the appellant
A Hoare for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Workers’ Compensation Regulator for the appellant
I M Lawyers for the respondent
[1]This appeal concerns a successful no-case submission advanced on behalf of the respondent below following a summary trial in the Magistrates Court at Hervey Bay on 16 and 17 August 2021, for six charges brought under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (“the Act”). The appellant was charged with one offence under s 533, one offence under s 136 and four offences under s 534 of the Act. After hearing from nine witnesses, a submission of a no-case to answer was successfully advanced on behalf of the respondent. The appellant seeks to challenge that decision on four grounds, namely:
(a)there was an error in the application of the relevant legal principles concerning no-case applications.
(b)the conclusion reached as to the requisite “notice” under the Act was erroneously applied to all charges.
(c)there was an error concerning the statutory onus placed on claimants to notify an insurer of an engagement in a calling under the Act.
(d)there was an error in failing to take into account relevant evidence.
[2]The appeal is resisted for two reasons. The first is that the appellant has no right of an appeal from an acquittal and therefore the appeal is incompetent. Secondly, the reasons and findings by the learned Magistrate do not disclose any…
Continue reading Workers' Compensation Regulator v Roos
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Workers' Compensation Regulator v Roos [2022] QDC 150
- Case
- [2022] QDC 150
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Workers' Compensation Regulator had standing to appeal the decision of the Magistrates Court and whether the Magistrate had erred in finding that there was no case to answer on six charges. A further issue was whether Mr Roos should be granted an indemnity certificate in accordance with the provisions of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.
In allowing the appeal, the court found that the Workers' Compensation Regulator did have standing to appeal the decision of the Magistrates Court. The court also found that the Magistrate had erred in finding that there was no case to answer on six charges. The court held that the evidence presented by the Regulator was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against Mr Roos. The court further found that Mr Roos was not entitled to an indemnity certificate. The court held that the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 did not apply to the costs of the appeal in this case.
The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Magistrates Court was set aside. The proceeding was remitted to the Magistrates Court for rehearing and determination according to law before a different Magistrate. Unless either party applied for (or the parties otherwise agreed to) a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment, the respondent would pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis. Additionally, an indemnity certificate pursuant to sections 15(2) and 16(1)(a) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 was not granted to the respondent in respect of the costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The order of the Magistrates Court made on 17 August 2021 be set aside.
3. The proceeding be remitted to the Magistrates Court for rehearing and determination according to law before a different Magistrate.
4. Unless either party applies for (or the parties otherwise agree to) a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment:
(a) the respondent will pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis;
(b) an indemnity certificate pursuant to sections 15(2) and 16(1)(a) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 is granted to the respondent in respect of the costs of the appeal.
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.