Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator
[2023] ICQ 30
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] ICQ 30
- Add to List
Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] ICQ 30
Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] ICQ 30
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Praljak v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 30 |
PARTIES: | ADRIAN PRALJAK (appellant) v WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | C/2023/40 C/2023/41 C/2023/42 |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
DELIVERED ON: | 1 December 2023 |
HEARING DATE: | 30 November 2023 |
MEMBER: | Davis J, President |
ORDER: | In each of C/2023/40, C/2023/41 and C/2023/42; Application to Appeal struck out. |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – where the applicant made applications for workers’ compensation – where WorkCover refused the applications – where the appellant sought review by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator of WorkCover’s refusal of his claims – where the Regulator confirmed the decision of WorkCover – where the appellant appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) – where the QIRC struck out each of the appeals – where the appellant appealed to the Industrial Court of Queensland – where the Regulator applied to strike out the notices of appeal to the Court – where the notices of appeal were insensible – whether the appeals ought to be struck out Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 548, s 557, s 560A, s 565 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 45, r 139, r 226 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 |
CASES: | Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170; [1981] HCA 39, cited Batistatos v Road and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27, followed Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194; [2000] HCA 47, cited Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1, followed Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, cited House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, followed Paul Scott v State of Queensland & Ors [2019] QIRC 115, cited Praljak v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 310, related Turay v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 013, cited Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Glass (2020) 4 QR 693; [2020] QCA 133, cited |
COUNSEL: | The appellant appeared by telephone Mr PB O'Neill instructed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator |
- [1]The Workers’ Compensation Regulator applies to strike out three Applications to Appeal filed by Adrian Praljak against a decision of Deputy President Merrell[1] which struck out three appeals to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) from decisions of the Regulator.
Background
- [2]Mr Praljak was employed by Bond University. He made claim for workers’ compensation pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCR Act) alleging psychiatric or psychological injury (the Bond claim). WorkCover, the statutory insurer established under the WCR Act disallowed the claim. Mr Praljak sought review of that decision by the Regulator. The Regulator confirmed the decision of WorkCover.
- [3]Mr Praljak filed an Application to Appeal[2] against the decision of WorkCover. That became QIRC file WC/2022/165. That notice of appeal was subsequently amended.
- [4]As amended, the notice of appeal to the QIRC identified the decision being appealed against as:
“1) Reasons for Decision Queensland Government Office of Industrial Relations; Dated; 07/10/2022; ‘application for review received by the Worker’s Compensation Regulator on 6 August 2022 in relation to the Decision by Work Cover Queensland (Work Cover) ro rejectyour application for compensation (the application).’
2) The written decision from; Dated; 04/08/2022 Work Cover Queensland Claim S18QC820692
3) All other relevant Decisions connected with this new QIRC Legal Case”
And the grounds of appeal as:
“1) Unpaid Wages & Super Contributions: Due to Bond University Limited and their Associates at the time not making fair, reasonable adjustments and support I lost several years of career and income. I seek $55,750,000.00 ($55,750 Million AUD) or The Maximum Financial Compensation amount from Bond University Limited for general and aggravated damages and $55,750,000.00 AUD or the Maximum Financial Compensation amount for loss of Income and Economic Circumstances, Punitive Damages and all other available Legal Grounds, Damages, Remedies, Persuant to the strong QIRC Legal Case Precedent of; Golding v Sippel &The Laundry Chute Pty Ltd 2021.
2) Request leave to appeal on a question of facts; Both Work-Cover Queensland, OIR and their Investigators had incorrect facts, incomplete facts, and recent new legal evidence has come to light which supports me, Mr. Adrian Praljak the victim and all of my stated sound allegations against Bond University Limited and their past, current certain Associates.
3) Error of Law; Both Work-Cover Queensland, OIR and their Investigators had incorrect Laws. That an Entity Bond University can commit Rape, Sexual Abuse and other Indictable and Summary crimes against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak and against many other victims over many decades and financial fraud, bullying, harassment. New Legal Evidence has also come to light, and I have recently provided all of this Legal Evidence to the Disability Royal Commission and Other Australian Commonwealth and State Agencies and Ministers for their immediate sound investigations and prosecutions under their Powers, Scopes, Jurisdictions, Authority, Portfolios.
4) Strong Evidence in the Public Best Interest for QIRC to run my Legal Cases; My QIRC Case is in the Australian and International Public Interests because the criminal offenders at Bond University and their past and current certain Associates need to be held accountable under Australian and International Laws for their decades of Indictable and Summary Crimes, Other types of offences and for the permanent Medical Damage they caused to me during my short term Employment at the Entity Bond University Limited.
5) In the Interest of Justice;
6) The Verdict is unreasonable;
7) The Verdict cannot be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence - unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict
8) There is Mixed Laws and Facts;
9) There is a Breach of Duty of Care;
10) There is Unlawful Negligence
11) Sexual Abuse;
12) Criminal Defamation, Harasment, Unlawful Stalking, Framing and Orchestrating false civil and criminal offences against Me the Victim; Mr. Adrian Praljak
13) Serious Indictable Historic Crimes and Other Crimes and Offences committed against me, mr. Adrian Praljak and many other victims over many decades.”
And the facts relied upon:
“1) All parties have Evidence now that I was Employed at Bond University Limited
2) New Legal Evidence and Facts have recently come to light about all of the Indictable and Summary crimes and other offences which have been committed at Bond University and by their past, current certain Employees against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak and against many Other Victims over many Decades.
3) New Medical Evidence has been obtained that I now suffer from; Acrophobia, Psychosocial Disability, Severe Anxiety, Claustrophobia, other Psychological damages, harm; due to my previous Employment and subsequent Other events where Bond University and their certain past, current Associates, Internally and externally have committed serious Indictable and Summary crimes, Other types of crimes, Offences against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak and many other victims over many decades.
4) I would like to give my Evidence at QIRC Orally.
5) I request leave to give my Evidence, Further Facts Orally as both; Work Cover Queensland and OIR Errored in Facts in making their Decisions for my Legal Case previously.
6) This is in The Interest of Justice
7) There has been Miscarriages of Justices
8) Work Cover Queensland failed to run, make sound, thorough investigations and they may have been, unlawfully compromised at the time of their Investigations into Bond University Limited, There may have also been, Serious Conflict of Interests, Duress, Unlawful Influence, Other Unlawful Conduct by external parties against Work-Cover Queensland.
9) Recent New Legal Evidence, facts has come out by the recent Independent Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service (QPS) and The Queensland Crimes Corruption Commission (CCC) about their Unlawful activities, failing to take people, victims such as myself, official written police statements and also their failure to subsequently investigate our complaints, written police statements, get justice and accountability under the law against the offenders, predators, criminal offenders.”
- [5]Mr Praljak was employed by James McConvill & Associates Lawyers. He made a claim for workers’ compensation alleging that he suffered from a psychiatric or psychological injury through his work (the McConvill claim). Again, WorkCover rejected the claim and the Regulator confirmed WorkCover’s decision. Mr Praljak appealed to the QIRC. That appeal became WC/2022/166.
- [6]That notice of appeal was later amended. As amended, it identified the details of the decision being appealed against as:
“1) Queensland Government Office of Industrial Relations; Reasons for Decision Dated; 07/10/2022; reference; 62551, Application For Review - Adrian Praljak
2) Work Cover Queensland Decision
3) All Other Decisions which are connected with this Legal Case to QIRC”
And the grounds of appeal as:
“1) Unpaid Wages & Super Contributions: Due to these Parties; 1) The Law Firm, McConvill & Associates, 2) James McConvill & 3) Their Associates at the time not making fair, reasonable adjustments & support and their Unlawful Crimes, offences against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak I lost several years of career & income. I now respectfully seek $25,750,000.00 ($25.75 Million AUD) or The Maximum Financial Compensation amount from 1) The Law Firm, McConvill & Associates, 2) James McConvill & 3) Their Associates for general & aggravated damages & $25,750,000.00 AUD or the Maximum Financial Compensation amount for loss of Income & Economic Circumstances, Punitive Damages & all other available Legal Grounds, Damages, Remedies. Pursuant to the strong QIRC Legal Case Precedent of; Golding v Sippel & The Laundry Chute Pty Ltd 2021. 2) Request leave to appeal on a question of facts; Both Work-Cover Queensland, OIR & their Investigators had incorrect facts, incomplete facts, & recent new legal evidence has come to light which supports me, Mr. Adrian Praljak the victim & all my stated sound allegations against 1) The Law Firm, McConvill & Associates, 2) James McConvill & 3) Their Associates Limited & their past, current certain Associates. 3) Error of Law; Both Work-Cover Queensland, OIR & their Investigators had incorrect Laws, That an Entity 1) The Law Firm, McConvill & Associates, 2) James McConvill & 3) Their Associates can commit; Fraud, Crimes of Deception, Trickery, Assaults, Sexual Abuse and other Indictable and Summary crimes against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak & against many other victims over many decades and financial fraud, criminal offences of bullying, harassment, New Legal Evidence has also come to light, & I have recently provided all of this Legal Evidence to the Disability Royal Commission & Other Australian Commonwealth & State Agencies & Ministers for their immediate sound investigations & prosecutions under their Powers, Scopes, Jurisdictions, Authority, Portfolios. 4) Strong Evidence in the Public Best Interest for QIRC to run my Legal Cases; My QIRC Case is in the Australian and International Public Interests because the criminal offenders at 1) The Law Firm, McConvill & Associates, 2) James McConvill & 3) Their Associates Limited & their past, current certain Associates, they need to be held accountable under Australian & International Laws for their decades of Indictable and Summary Crimes, Other types of offences & for the permanent Medical Damage they caused to me during my reasonable Employment at 1) The Law Firm, McConvill & Associates, 2) James McConvill & 3) Their Associates Limited & their past, current certain Associates. 5) In the Interest of Justice; 6) The Verdict is unreasonable; 7)The Verdict cannot be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence - unsafe & unsatisfactory verdict 8) There is Mixed Laws & Facts; 9) There is a Breach of Duty of Care; 10); There is Unlawful Negligence 11) Sexual Abuse; 12) Criminal Defamation, etc”
And the facts relied upon:
“New, 1) Media Evidence, 2) Legal Evidence & Facts, 3) Other Evidence & Material Facts have recently come to light about all of the Indictable & Summary crimes & other offences which have been committed at 1) The Law Firm, McConvill & Associates, 2) James McConvill & 3) Their Associates Limited & their past, current certain Associates, against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak & against many Other Victims over many Decades. 3) New Medical Evidence has been obtained that I now suffer from; Acrophobia, Psychosocial Disability, Severe Anxiety, Claustrophobia, other Psychological damage, harm; due to my previous Employment & subsequent Other events where 1) The Law Firm, McConvill & Associates, 2) James McConvill & 3) Their Associates Limited & their past, current certain Associates, Internally & externally have committed serious Indictable & Summary crimes, Other types of crimes, Offences against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak & many other victims over many decades. 4) I would like to give my Evidence at QIRC Orally. 5) I request leave to give my Evidence, Further Facts Orally as both; Work Cover Queensland and O I R Errored in Facts in making their Decisions for my Legal Case previously. 6) This is in The Interest of Justice 7) There has been Miscarriages of Justices 8) Work Cover Queensland failed to run, make sound, thorough investigations & they may have been unlawfully compromised at the time of their Investigations into 1) The Law Firm , McConvill & Associates, 2) James McConvill & 3) Their Associates Limited & their past, current certain Associates, There may have also been Serious Conflict of Interests, Duress, Unlawful Influence, Other Unlawful Conduct by external parties against Work-Cover Queensland. 9) Recent New Legal Evidence, facts have come out by the recent Independent Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service (QPS) & The Queensland Crimes Corruption Commission (CCC) about their Unlawful activities, failing to take people, victims such as my self-official written police statements & also their failure to subsequently investigate our complaints, written police statements, get justice & accountability under the law against the offenders, predators, criminal offenders.”
- [7]Mr Praljak was employed by Wyndham Vacations Resorts Pty Ltd (Wyndham). He lodged a claim alleging psychiatric or psychological injury suffered at work (the Wyndham claim). Again, WorkCover rejected the claim and the Regulator confirmed WorkCover’s decision. Again, Mr Praljak appealed to the QIRC. That became QIRC file WC/2022/167.
- [8]Again, that notice of appeal was amended. As amended, it identified the decision appealed against as:
“1) The Queensland Government Office of Industrial Relations; Reasons for decision, Dated; 07/10/2022; Reference is; 62552, RE: Application for Review - Adrian Praljak
2) Work-Cover Queensland Decisions for this Legal Case
3) All Other Decisions which are connected, relevant to this new Legal Case before QIRC.”
And the grounds of appeal as:
“1) Unpaid Wages & Super Contributions: Due to these Parties; Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd (Wyndham) at the time not making fair, reasonable adjustments & support and their Unlawful Crimes, offences against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak, I lost several years of career & income, Base Salary, Hourly Salary, Sales, Commissions, other potential incomes. I now respectfully seek $75,750,000.00 ($75, 75 Million AUD) or The Maximum Financial Compensation amount from Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd (Wyndham) for general & aggravated damages & $75,750,000.00 AUD or the Maximum Financial Compensation amount for loss of Income & Economic Circumstances, Punitive Damages & all other available Legal Grounds, Damages, Remedies. Pursuant to the strong QIRC Legal Case Precedent of; Golding v Sippel &The Laundry Chute Pty Ltd 2021. 2) Request leave to appeal on a question of facts; Both Work-Cover Queensland, OIR & their Investigators had incorrect facts, incomplete facts, & recent new legal evidence has come to light which supports me, Mr. Adrian Praljak the victim & all my stated sound allegations against Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd (Wyndham) 3) Error of Law; Both Work-Cover Queensland, OIR & their Investigators had incorrect Laws. That an Entity Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd (Wyndham) can commit; Fraud, Crimes of Deception, Trickery, Assaults, Sexual Abuse and other Indictable and Summary crimes against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak & against many other victims over many decades and financial fraud, bullying, harassment, New Legal Evidence has also come to light, & I have recently provided all of this Legal Evidence to the Disability Royal Commission & Other Australian Commonwealth & State Agencies & Ministers for their immediate sound investigations & prosecutions under their Powers, Scopes, Jurisdictions, Authority, Portfolios. 4) Strong Evidence in the Public Best Interest for QIRC to run my Legal Cases; My QIRC Case is in the Australian and International Public Interests because the criminal offenders at Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd (Wyndham), they need to be held accountable under Australian & International Laws for their decades of Indictable and Summary Crimes, Other types of offences & for the permanent Medical Damage they caused to me during my reasonable Employment at Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd (Wyndham) 5) In the Interest of Justice; 6) The Verdict is unreasonable; 7)The Verdict cannot be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence - unsafe & unsatisfactory verdict 8) There is Mixed Laws & Facts; 9) There is a Breach of Duty of Care; 10); There is Unlawful Negligence 11) Sexual Abuse; 12) Criminal Defamation, Harassment, Unlawful Stalking, Framing & Orchestrating false civil and criminal offences against Me the Victim; Mr. Adrian Praljak 13: Serious Indictable Historic Crimes & Other Crimes and Offences committed against me, Mr. Adrian Praljak & many other victims over many decades.”
And the facts relied upon:
“New Legal Evidence & Facts have recently come to light about all of the Indictable & Summary crimes & other offences which have been committed at Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd (Wyndham), against Me, Mr. Adrian Praljak & against many Other Victims over many Decades. 3) New Medical Evidence has been obtained that I now suffer from; Acrophobia, Psychosocial Disability, Severe Anxiety, Claustrophobia, other Psychological damage, harm; due to my previous Employment & subsequent Other events where; Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd (Wyndham), internally & externally have committed serious Indictable & Summary crimes, Other types of crimes, Offences against Mr, Mr. Adrian Praljak & many other victims over many decades. 4) I would like to give my Evidence at QIRC Orally. 5) I request leave to give my Evidence, Further Facts Orally as both: Work Cover Queensland and OIR Errored in Facts in making their Decisions for my Legal Case previously. 6) This is in The Interest of Justice 7) There has been Miscarriages of Justices 8) Work Cover Queensland failed to run, make sound, thorough investigations & they may have been unlawfully compromised at the time of their investigations into Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd (Wyndham), There may have also been Serious Conflict of Interests, Duress, Unlawful Influence, Other Unlawful Conduct by external parties against Work-Cover Queensland. 9) Recent New Legal Evidence, facts have come out by the recent Independent Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service (QPS) & The Queensland Crimes Corruption Commission (CCC) about their Unlawful activities, failing to take people, victims such as my self-official written police statements & also their failure to subsequently investigate our complaints, written police statements, get justice and accountability under the law against the offenders, predators, criminal offenders.
Both; Work Cover Queensland and OIR failed to obtain my lodged Reports/Complaints/Sexual Abuse complaints from Human Resources at Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd (Wyndham) and to current Date; 17/08/2023; I have never been provided a copy of this Evidence and Material Facts.”
- [9]The eventual form of the notices of appeal to the QIRC were as a result of various orders made by the Deputy President directing Mr Praljak to amend the notices so they complied with the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (the Rules).
- [10]There was a conference in relation to the appeals to the QIRC listed for 17 March 2023 at which Mr Praljak did not appear. At a mention on 14 June 2023, the Regulator raised issues as to the grounds of appeal in the notices of appeal and on 14 June 2023, the Deputy President ordered that Mr Praljak file and serve amended notices of appeal. A conference was ordered to be held on 14 August 2023.
- [11]Amended notices of appeal were filed on 16 June 2023, but at the conference on 14 August 2023, the Regulator again raised issues as to their content and form. The Deputy President then, on 14 August 2023, ordered Mr Praljak file and serve further amended notices of appeal. These were filed on 17 August 2023. It was those amended notices of appeal which were the subject of the strike-out applications and took the form that I have set out above.
- [12]Of some significance, the order of 14 August 2023 provided that the further amended notices of appeal for all three of Mr Praljak’s matters should be in a form:
“which puts the respondent[3] on notice of the case it has come to meet in relation to the grounds of appeal (section 5 of the notice of appeal) and in relation to the facts relied on (section 6 of the notice of appeal).”
- [13]The Regulator applied to the QIRC to strike out the three amended notices of appeal on bases that:
- they did not comply with the order of 14 August 2023;
- Mr Praljak had not provided notices of appeal which comply with the Rules;
- the Regulator cannot understand, or be expected to understand, from the amended notices of appeal, what case it had to meet at the hearing of the appeals.
- [14]The Deputy President relied upon r 45 of the Rules which provides:
“45 Failure to attend or to comply with directions order
- This rule applies if-
- a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar stating a time, date and place for a hearing or conference for the proceeding; and
- the party fails to attend the hearing or conference.
- This rule also applies if-
- a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar; and
- the party fails to comply with the order.
- The court, commission or registrar may-
- dismiss the proceeding; or
- make a further directions order; or
- make another order dealing with the proceeding that the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate, including, for example, a final order; or
- make orders under paragraphs (b) and ( c ).”
- [15]After directing himself to the judgment of Vice President O'Connor in Paul Scott v State of Queensland & Ors,[4] the Deputy President:
1.stated: “[52] Finally, I have no confidence that if I gave Mr Praljak a further opportunity to file Second Further Amended Notices of Appeal - so as to achieve the purpose of reasonably putting the Regulator on notice of what his appeals are about in terms of grounds and facts - he would be able to do so.”; and
2.acted under r 45(3) of the Rules and dismissed the three appeals.[5]
- [16]From that decision, Mr Praljak appealed to this Court by three Applications to Appeal.[6] His appeal in relation to the Bond claim became C/2023/40. No grounds of appeal were shown in the notice of appeal, but it specified that the details of the decisions sought from the Court of Appeal are:
“1) Merrell DP Decision made on the 30/10/2023 be immediately, Legally Quashed, Overturned.
2) Merrell DP Unlawfully Defamed me, Mr. Adrian Praljak, by Publishing his ‘Decision’ in writing; Merrell DP wrote an incorrect Medical Condition, which I, Mr. Adrian Praljak don’t have, (Merrell DP wrote that I have ‘agoraphobia), this is incorrect. Merrell DP was meant to write that I have ‘Acrophobia’ which is situational based bear of heights. Whether Merrell DP wrote “agoraphobia’ Intentionally or Unintentionally, he put it in writing and this has Unlawfully Defamed me to the world at large.
3) That QIRC compels Work Cover Queensland and OIR[7] to run fresh Investigations into all Four (4) x original Work Cover Cases which were originally lodged by Mr. Adrian Praljak.”
- [17]Mr Praljak’s appeal against the decision made in the McConvill claim became C/2023/41. The details of decision sought identified in the notice of appeal are:
“1) Merrell DP Decision made on the 30/10/2023 be immediately, Legally Quashed, Overturned.
2) Merrell DP Unlawfully Defamed me, Mr. Adrian Praljak, by Publishing his ‘Decision’ in writing; Merrell DP wrote an incorrect Medical Condition, which I, Mr. Adrian Praljak don’t have, (Merrell DP wrote that I have ‘agoraphobia), this is incorrect. Merrell DP was meant to write that I have ‘Acrophobia’ which is situational based fear of heights. Whether Merrell DP wrote ‘agoraphobia’ Intentionally or Unintentionally, he put it in writing and this has Unlawfully Defamaded me to the world at large.
3) That QIRC compels Work Cover Queensland and OIR to run fresh Investigations into all Four (4) x original Work Cover Cases which were originally lodged by Mr. Adrian Praljak.”
The grounds of appeal identified in the notice of appeal are:
“1) These Paerties; Member Merrell DP from QIRC, Work Cover Queensland, OIR - They Errored in both Laws & Facts of this Case;
‘having regard to the medical evidence before it, Mr Praljak’s employment with McConville was not a significant contributing factor to his injury.’
I, Mr. Adrian Praljak state the following; ‘Legal Causes of Actions’ are present in this Legal Case bfore QIRC, which Work Cover Queensland, OIR, QIRC have not applied to my cases;
- Torts
- Breach of Duty of Care
- nelgigence
- Complex Fraud
- Indictable and Unlawful Offences, Crimes,
- Statutory Offences
- Verbal Assault
- Emotional Abuse
- Scham Employment Contracts
- Underpaid E.G. Violations of My, Mr. Adrian Praljak Lawful - General Protections
- Human Right Offences, Abuses
- Causing significant Losses in numerous areas of my Life E.G. Financial, Health, Medical,
Emotional Trauma,
- Gaslighting
- Sexual Abuse
- Exploitation
- Criminal and Civil Defamation of mr. Adrian Praljak
- Other Lawful possible Legal Casuses of Actions
- Nepotism, Cronism”
- [18]Mr Praljak’s appeal against the dismissal of the Wyndham claim became C/2023/42. The details of the decision sought in the notice of appeal are:
“1) Merrell DP Decision made on the 30/10/2023 be immediately, Legally Quashed, Overturned.
2) Merrell DP Unlawfully Defamed me, Mr. Adrian Praljak, by Publishing his ‘Decision’ in writing; Merrell DP wrote an incorrect Medical Condition, which I, Mr. Adrian Praljak don’t have, (Merrell DP wrote that I have ‘agoraphobia), this is incorrect. Merrell DP was meant to write that I have ‘Acrophobia’ which is situational based fear of heights. Whether Merrell DP wrote ‘agoraphobia’ Intentionally or Unintentionally, he put it in writing and this has Unlawfully Defamaded me to the world at large.
3) That QIRC compels Work Cover Queensland and OIR to run fresh Investigations into all Four (4) x original Work Cover Cases which were originally lodged by Mr. Adrian Praljak.”
The grounds of appeal are:
“1) These Parties; Member Merrell DP from QIRC, Work Cover Queensland, OIR - They Errored in both Laws & Facts of this Case;
‘having regard to the medical evidence before it, Mr Praljak’s employment with Wyndham was not a significant contributing factor to his injury.
I, Mr. Adrian Praljak state the following; ‘Legal Causes of Actions’ are present in this Legal Case bfore QIRC, which Work Cover Queensland, OIR, QIRC have not applied to my cases;
- Torts
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Nelgigence
- Indictable and Unlawful Offences, Crimes,
- Statutory Offences
- Verbal Assault
- Emotional Abuse
- Institutional Offences, Institutional Abuses
- Human Right Offences, Abuses
- Causing significant Losses in numerous areas of my Life E.G. Financial, Health, Medical,
Emotional Trauma,
- Gaslighting
- Sexual Offences, Abuses
- Loss Of Career Opportunities
- Unlawful Indictable Crimes of cartel, Complex Financial Fraud, Crimes of Deception, Misleading
& Deceptive Marketing, Rape, Sexual Abuse, Sex Trafficking.
- Loss of significant Financial Incomes
- Other Lawful possible Legal Casuses of Actions”[8]
Relevant legislation
- [19]Mr Praljak’s claim for workers’ compensation is governed by the WCR Act. Both the WCR Act and the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (IR Act) provide mechanisms for an appeal from the QIRC to this Court. In Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Glass,[9] Sofronoff P, sitting alone in the Court of Appeal, explained that where the WCR Act gave an avenue of appeal, no appeal was available pursuant to the provisions of the IR Act.
- [20]In Turay v Workers’ Compensation Regulator,[10] this Court held that where an appeal was provided under the WCR Act, the nature of the appeal was one by rehearing as that concept is commonly known[11] and where the appeal is under the provisions of the IR Act, the grounds of such an appeal are limited by s 557(1) of the IR Act to errors of law or jurisdiction unless leave is granted to argue other grounds.[12]
- [21]Section 548 of the WCR Act provides for the appeal to the QIRC from the Regulator. Section 560A provides for an appeal to this Court against “a decision of the Industrial Commission under Chapter 4, Part 6”.
- [22]The reference to “the Industrial Commission” is a reference to the QIRC. A decision made under Chapter 4, Part 6 is a decision made on a review of a decision of the Regulator.
- [23]A decision of the QIRC dismissing the appeal must be “a decision of the Industrial Commission at Chapter 4, Part 6” even if the dismissal was based upon a failure to comply with the Rules rather than being a dismissal on the merits of the case. The Rules merely facilitate the hearing of an appeal instituted pursuant to s 548 of the WCR Act.
- [24]It follows that the appeal to this Court is one by way of rehearing.
- [25]In any event, the decision of the QIRC was one made in exercise of discretion so the jurisdiction for appellate intervention is limited by the principles in House v The King.[13] The decisions were of a nature of case management orders with which appellate courts are loath to interfere except where substantial injustice is shown.[14] However, the decision of the Deputy President effectively ended the appeals and the normal reluctance to interfere on appeal may not be present.
Consideration
- [26]The notices of appeal to this Court are all insensible.
- [27]As to the notice of appeal in the Bond claim,[15] there are no grounds of appeal[16] specified at all. Mr Praljak does identify the decisions which he seeks on appeal. The first is clear enough. It seeks the quashing of the decision at first instance. The second order sought is not an order at all. Mr Praljak asserts that the Deputy President defamed him by mistakenly describing his medical condition as “agoraphobia” instead of “acrophobia”. It is not explained how that error could form a ground of appeal which might succeed in quashing the decision below. It is not a proper ground of appeal that the Deputy President said things in the judgment which were not complimentary of Mr Praljak.
- [28]The third decision sought on appeal is an order compelling WorkCover and the Office of Industrial Relations “to run fresh investigations” into his cases with WorkCover. WorkCover was not a party to the proceedings in the QIRC. The Office of Industrial Relations was not a party to the proceedings before the QIRC. Neither are parties to the appeal. Even if they were, I can identify no source of jurisdiction in this Court to make the order sought.
- [29]
- [30]The details of the decision sought in each of the McConvill and Wyndham claims are the same as in the Bond claim and therefore suffer the same criticism.
- [31]The first ground of appeal in each of the McConvill and Wyndham claims asserts that Deputy President Merrell, WorkCover and OIR erred in finding “having regard to the medical evidence before it, Mr Praljak’s employment with McConvill [and in the other appeal, Wyndham] was not a significant contributing factor to his injury”. The appeal is from the decision of the Deputy President striking-out the notices of appeal from the Regulator’s decision to the QIRC. This is not an appeal from any decision of either WorkCover or OIR. What is sought to be achieved by the appeal to this Court is the correction of any error made by the Deputy President. It is only his decision which is relevant to this appeal.
- [32]Deputy President Merrell did not determine that Mr Praljak’s employment with McConvill (and Wyndham) was not a significant contributing factor to his injury. What the Deputy President did find is that each of WorkCover and the Regulator found that Mr Praljak’s employment with, respectively, McConvill and Wyndham, were not significant contributing factors to his injury.[20] Those findings by the Deputy President were clearly correct. WorkCover and the Regulator made decisions rejecting the claims on the basis that Mr Praljak’s employment with, respectively, McConvill and Wyndham, did not contribute to his injuries.
- [33]Of the three notices of appeal filed in the QIRC against the decisions of the Regulator, the Deputy President observed:
“[30] None of the 17 August Notices of Appeal set out any facts, in relation to the circumstances of Mr Praljak’s employment with Bond University, McConville or Wyndham, which may support any contention the review decisions were wrong.
[31] Again, each of the 17 August Notices of Appeal contain a series of almost identical facts that are relied upon by Mr Praljak. In doing so, Mr Praljak also makes a number of irrelevant and vague allegations about new evidence which, as best as I understand it, he alleges support the criminal allegations he makes in the 17 August Notices of Appeal.”
- [34]Those comments by the Deputy President are unquestionably correct.
- [35]The second ground of appeal to this Court in each of the McConvill and Wyndham claims identifies so-called “legal causes of actions” that had not been “applied to [Mr Praljak’s] cases” by the QIRC, WorkCover and OIR. What follows is a long unparticularised list of so-called “legal causes of actions”. Nowhere is there any attempt to link those things to any error in the decisions actually made by the Deputy President in striking out the appeals to the QIRC.
- [36]The outlines filed by Mr Praljak in support of each of the three notices of appeal are relevantly the same. There is no sensible identification of any alleged error in the exercise of discretion by Deputy President Merrell. The submissions repeat the assertion that the Deputy President has defamed Mr Praljak by recording that Mr Praljak suffers from agoraphobia rather than acrophobia. The submissions go on to make all number of irrelevant allegations and assertions, including:
- the decisions are affected by errors of law without identifying any error;
- the Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and family violence is somehow relevant but the relevance is not explained;
- WorkCover failed to conduct proper investigations;
- WorkCover may have been improperly influenced by outside sources;
- Mr Praljak has appointed a new forensic psychologist;
- Deputy President Merrell is guilty of judicial misconduct and other misconduct by referring to agoraphobia rather than acrophobia.
- [37]Neither the notices to appeal nor the submissions identify any errors of law. They do not allege that the Deputy President took into account any irrelevant matters or that he failed to take into account some material consideration. There is no suggestion in the notices of appeal nor the submissions that the Deputy President made any mistake of fact.
- [38]No error justifying judicial intervention into the exercise of discretion by Deputy President Merrell is identified in the notices of appeal or the written submissions. Nothing in the written submissions suggests that any of the appeals have any prospects of success.
- [39]On the hearing of the application to strike out the notices of appeal Mr Praljak made oral submissions. He alleged misconduct by a number of persons and institutions but he did not make any submissions which raised any suggestion of any error in the judgment under appeal.
- [40]The notices of appeal do not concisely state grounds of appeal[21] and therefore do not comply with the Rules. In addition to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to prevent an abuse of process by the continued prosecution of appeals with no prospects of success,[22] r 226 of the Rules also gives the Court jurisdiction to strike out the appeals for failure to comply with the Rules.[23] The appeals should each be struck out.
- [41]The Regulator does not seek any costs order.
Orders
In each of C/2023/40, C/2023/41 and C/2023/42; Application to Appeal struck out.
Footnotes
[1] Praljak v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 310.
[2] Which I will call a “notice of appeal”.
[3] The Regulator.
[4] [2019] QIRC 115.
[5] Praljak v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 310 at [52]-[56].
[6] Which I will call a “notice of appeal”.
[7] Presumably a reference to the Office of Industrial Relations.
[8] All the documents filed by Mr Praljak are faithfully reproduced complete with obvious typographical and grammatical errors.
[9] (2020) 4 QR 693.
[10] [2023] ICQ 013.
[11] Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 at [13] and [14] and Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at [25].
[12] Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 557(2), but the circumstances in which leave may be given is limited by s 565.
[13] (1936) 55 CLR 499.
[14] Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 at 177 and as to the fact that rights were finally determined, see pages 177, 178 and 180.
[15] File C/2023/40.
[16] See paragraph [16] of these reasons.
[17] C/2023/41.
[18] C/2023/42.
[19] See paragraphs [17] and [18] of these reasons.
[20] Praljak v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 310 at [9], [10], [13] and [14].
[21] Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 139(2).
[22] Batistatos v Road and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256 at [19] and following Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioner (1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91.
[23] Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 226.