QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Yousif v The Workers' Compensation Regulator [2018] QIRC 068 |
PARTIES: | Yousif, Belal v Workers' Compensation Regulator |
CASE NO: | WC/2017/5 |
PROCEEDING: | Application for a recusal |
DELIVERED ON: | 29 May 2018 (ex tempore) |
HEARING DATE: | 28, 29 May 2018 |
MEMBER: HEARD AT: | O'Connor DP Toowoomba |
ORDER: | 1. Application dismissed |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL – where applicant requests that the Deputy President be disqualified and recused from hearing the substantive appeal – application dismissed. |
LEGISLATION: CASES: | Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32, s 131 Brisbane City Council v Gillow & Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2016] ICQ 007 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427 Minister for Immigration v Lee 249 CLR 332 |
| APPEARANCES: | Mr F Abdullah agent for the appellant Mr S Macleod of counsel directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator |
Reasons for Decision (ex tempore)
The appellant has filed an application seeking the following order:
That His Honour Deputy President of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission be disqualified and recused from hearing the matter ordered and set down for trial on 28, 29, 30, 31 May and 1 June 2018 at the Toowoomba Court House by Her Honour, Deputy President D A Swan under a Further Direction Order No.6 dated 4 December 2017 pursuant to the Mention before her Honour on 28 November 2017.
The appellant identifies the following five grounds to support its application. Each of them is based upon a real and reasonable apprehension of bias in relation to me. They can be summarised as follows:
Firstly, that I have arbitrarily overruled by my own volition and set aside order number 6 of the further direction of her Honour, Deputy President D.A. Swan, dated 4 December 2017, which her Honour had determined after hearing the parties at the mention held on 28 November 2017, especially considering the fact that the appellant had complied with all the orders stated therein and, further, considering that no application has been made by the respondent to set 20 aside the order.
The second ground is that an impartial and fair hearing under the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice has been denied, wherein, I have, at the mention of 22 May 2018, arbitrarily and unlawfully limited the length of hearing of appeal to two days, i.e. 28 and 29 May 2018, with seven witnesses compressed to be heard within two days without due regard to the evidence to be presented as per the outline of evidence submitted by the appellant to the commission in respect of the witnesses. Effectively preventing and wrongfully supressing the appellant from presenting and…
Continue reading Yousif v The Workers' Compensation Regulator
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Yousif v The Workers' Compensation Regulator [2018] QIRC 68
- Case
- [2018] QIRC 68
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the basis of the application for recusal, considering whether there were any circumstances that might reasonably give rise to a justifiable perception of bias or partiality on the part of the Deputy President. The court applied established legal principles regarding judicial impartiality and the recusal of judicial officers, assessing the evidence and arguments presented by the applicant. After a thorough examination, the court concluded that there were no grounds to support the application for recusal. The court found that the applicant had not provided any evidence or grounds that would warrant the Deputy President's disqualification.
Consequently, the court dismissed the application for recusal. The substantive appeal was to proceed with the Deputy President remaining as the hearing officer. The court's decision was based on the absence of any justifiable grounds for the Deputy President's disqualification. The final order was that the application for recusal was dismissed, allowing the substantive appeal to continue under the jurisdiction of the Deputy President.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application 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.