Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. ICQ
  3. 2023
  4. Schlumberger Australia Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2023] ICQ 7

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Schlumberger Australia Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] ICQ 7

Schlumberger Australia Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] ICQ 7

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Schlumberger Australia Pty Ltd v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 007

PARTIES:

SCHLUMBERGER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

(appellant)

v

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR

(respondent)

FILE NO:

C/2022/33

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

15 May 2023

HEARING DATE:

19 April 2023

MEMBER:

Davis J, President

ORDERS:

  1. 1.Appeal dismissed.
  2. 2.Parties file and exchange written submissions on costs by 29 May 2023.
  3. 3.Each party has leave to file an application for leave to make oral submissions on costs by 5 June 2023.
  4. 4.In the absence of any application for leave to make oral submissions on costs by 12 June 2023, the issue of costs will be determined on any written submissions filed and with no oral hearing.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – INSURANCE AND LEVIES – PREMIUMS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO INSURANCE FUNDS – where the appellant is an employer – where the appellant is liable for workers’ compensation insurance premiums under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – where premiums are calculated upon classification of an employer’s business type – where the appellant’s business was classified as “Other Mining Support Services” – where the appellant contends that its business is “Oil and Gas Extraction” – whether the correct procedure for classification was adopted – whether the appellant’s business was correctly classified

Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2011, s 66

Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 407, s 556, s 557, s 558

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

Workers’Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 5, s 46, s 48, s 54, s 56, s 380, s 381, s 383, s 384, s 540, s 541, s 542, s 546, s 548A, s 549, s 551, s 553, s 554, s 558, s 561, s 567, s 651

CASES:

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (NT) (2009) 239 CLR 27, cited

Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235, cited

Burton v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2022] ICQ 017, considered

Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616, cited

Capilano Honey Ltd v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2018] ICQ 002, followed

Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129, cited

Nutley v President, Industrial Court (2019) 1 QR 354, cited

Otis Elevator Company v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 166 QGIG 424, followed

R v A2; R v Magennis; R v Vaziri (2019) 269 CLR 507, cited

Schlumberger Australia Pty Ltd v Workers’ Compensation Regulator unreported, Magistrate Merrin, 4 December 2022, related

SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 91 ALJR 936, cited

Turnbull v New South Wales Medical Board [1976] 2 NSWLR 281, cited

WorkCover Queensland v Shagadelic Pty Ltd (2001) 166 QGIG 422, followed

COUNSEL:

M Trim for the appellant

P B O'Neill for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gilchrist Connell for the appellant

Workers’ Compensation Regulator directly briefing

Mr O'Neill of Counsel

  1. [1]
    Schlumberger Australia Pty Ltd, the appellant, appeals the decision of an industrial magistrate the effect of which was to classify its business for the purposes of the calculation of premiums payable under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCR Act).

The legislative scheme relevant to liability for, and calculation of, premiums

  1. [2]
    Section 5 of the WCR Act identifies the objects of the legislation. It provides, relevantly:

“5 Workers’ compensation scheme

  1. (1)
    This Act establishes a workers’ compensation scheme for Queensland—
  1. (a)
    providing benefits for workers who sustain injury in their employment, for dependants if a worker’s injury results in the worker’s death, for persons other than workers, and for other benefits; and
  2. (b)
    encouraging improved health and safety performance by employers. …”
  1. [3]
    Those objects are advanced, at least in part, by the implementation of an insurance scheme.[1]
  2. [4]
    Chapter 2 concerns “Employer’s obligations” which include the obligation to hold and maintain insurance against liability for injuries sustained by a worker employed by the employer.[2]
  3. [5]
    That obligation is discharged by holding a policy issued by WorkCover.[3] The premiums are calculated pursuant to s 54. That provides, relevantly here:

“54Setting of premium

  1. (1)
    WorkCover must set the premium payable under a policy.
  2. (2)
    The premium payable for the policy for a period of insurance must be assessed according to the method (the method) and at the rate (the rate) specified by WorkCover by gazette notice.
  3. (3)
    If no rate is specified in the notice for an employer’s industry or business, WorkCover must decide the rate to be the rate applying to the industry or business classification specified in the notice that most closely describes the employer’s industry or business. …
  4. (9)
    If an employer is aggrieved by WorkCover’s decision, the employer may have the decision reviewed under chapter 13.
  5. (10)
    In this section—

employer’s premium rate means the premium rate calculated for the employer by using a formula that takes into account the number and cost of claims made against the employer’s policy during previous financial years.

relevant industry rate, in relation to an employer, means the industry or business classification rate applying to the industry or business classification—

  1. (a)
    stated in the gazette notice under subsection (2) for the employer’s industry or business; or
  2. (b)
    as decided by WorkCover under subsection (3)— for the industry or business that most closely describes the employer’s industry or business.”
  1. [6]
    By s 54(2), the method and rate of assessment is governed by gazette notice. The relevant gazette notice is the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, WorkCover Queensland Notice (No 1) of 2020 (the gazette notice).
  1. [7]
    By the gazette notice, premiums are calculated by reference to the type of business being undertaken by the employer. In order to achieve this, WorkCover allocates a “WIC” which is a “WorkCover Industry Classification”.
  2. [8]
    Part 9 of the gazette notice provides, relevantly here:

“Part 9 — How a WorkCover Industry Classification (WIC) is allocated to an employer’s policy

  1. 19
    Application of this part
  2. 19.1
    This part is to be read with the national industry classifications prescribed under the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) 2006.
  3. 20
    One WIC per policy
  4. 20.1
    Except as provided under Sections 22 to 26, WorkCover will allocate only one WIC to an employer’s policy.
  5. 21
    WIC determined by business activity
  6. 21.1
    Except as provided under Sections 22 to 26, WorkCover will allocate the WIC it considers corresponds to or most closely describes, the employer’s predominant business activity.
  7. 21.2
    Without limiting Section 21.1, in determining the WIC that corresponds to or most closely describes the employer’s predominant business activity, WorkCover will have regard to the following matters:
  1. a)
    the nature of the goods and services supplied by the employer;
  2. b)
    the business activity or activities the employer holds itself out as performing or being ready, willing and able to perform;
  3. c)
    the ANZSIC Top-down method;
  4. d)
    the proportion of the employer’s total sales and revenue attributable to each business activity undertaken by it and the goods and services supplied by that business activity;
  5. e)
    the proportion of the employer’s workers who work in that business activity, or provide management and support services for that business activity;
  6. f)
    the history of workers’ compensation claims and claims costs attributable to the various business activities conducted by the employer;
  7. g)
    the amount of the payments or estimated payments made by the employer attributable to each business activity undertaken by it to persons, regardless of whether those persons are workers of the employer or not. These payments include those made to persons engaged through an arrangement with another entity whereby the persons’ labour or services are provided to the employer by a separate service entity, a labour hire employer or a group training organisation; and
  8. h)
    any other matter that WorkCover considers relevant.” (emphasis added; example omitted)
  1. [9]
    Clause 19.1 of the gazette notice recognises the Australian and New Zealand standard industrial classification (ANZSIC) 2006 and incorporates that standard into the scheme of classification of the WIC. As can be seen from the gazette notice, it is the ANZSIC which must be applied in order to determine the WIC.
  2. [10]
    The industrial magistrate found that the appropriate classification was “Other Mining Support Services”. The appellant submits on appeal that her Honour should have classified it’s business activity as “Oil and Gas Extraction”. The ANZSIC description of each of these two classifications is:

“070OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION

0700Oil and Gas Extraction

This class consists of units mainly engaged in producing crude oil, natural gas or condensate through the extraction of oil and gas deposits.

Primary activities

  • Gas, natural, extraction
  • Natural gas extraction
  • Oil shale mining
  • Petroleum gas extraction

Exclusions/References

Units mainly engaged in

  • refining heavy and light component crude oil, manufacturing and/or blending materials into petroleum fuel, and manufacturing fuel from liquefied petroleum gases are included in Class 1701 Petroleum Refining and Petroleum Fuel Manufacturing;
  • liquefying natural gas are included in Class 1811 Industrial Gas Manufacturing.”

And:

“109OTHER MINING SUPPORT SERVICES

1090Other Mining Support Services

This class consists of units mainly engaged in providing mining support services integral to the mining process.

Primary activities

  • Cementing oil and gas well castings
  • Directional drilling and redrilling
  • Mining draining and pumping service
  • Oil and gas field support service n.e.c.

Exclusions/References

Units mainly engaged in

  • carrying out an entire mining operation are classified according to the deposit type;
  • providing geological or geophysical surveying services on a contract or fee basis are included in Class 6922 Surveying and Mapping Services;
  • providing ore testing, assaying or similar laboratory type services on a contract or fee basis are included in Class 6925 Scientific Testing and Analysis Services;
  • providing services incidental to the mining industry, such as catering and transport, are coded to the appropriate industry for that activity;
  • undertaking general exploration contracts for particular minerals or in providing related drilling services are included in Class 1012 Mineral Exploration; and
  • undertaking mine site preparation and removal of overburden done on a contract or fee basis are included in Class 3212 Site Preparation Services.”
  1. [11]
    Various other provisions of the ANZSIC are relevant to the application of the classifications.
  2. [12]
    Chapter 1 of the ANZSIC is entitled “Introduction”. The purpose of industrial classifications of business entities and the uses to which classifications may be put are described as:
  1. “1.4An industrial classification is one way to organise data about business units. It provides a standard framework under which business units carrying out similar productive activities can be grouped together, with each resultant group referred to as an industry. …
  1. 1.6As well as being the standard industrial classification that underpins ABS an Statistics NZ industry statistics, the ANZSIC is widely used by government agencies, industry organisations and researchers for various administrative, regulatory, taxation and research purposes throughout Australia and New Zealand.”
  1. [13]
    ANZSIC arranges its classifications into divisions, subdivisions, groups and classes. This is explained in Chapter 2 as:
  1. “2.1To use statistical information about business units effectively, it is first necessary to organise that information into categories suitable for economic analysis. This can be done by using different classifications depending on the particular interests of users.
  2. 2.2An industry classification is one way of organising data from a business unit perspective. It provides a standard framework under which units carrying out similar productive activities can be grouped together, with each resultant group being referred to as an industry. The term industry is used in its widest context, covering the full range of economic activities undertaken to produce both goods and services.
  3. 2.3Each individual class is defined in terms of a specified range of activities. It is common for a business unit to engage in a range of activities wider than those designated as belonging to a particular class, and when this occurs we classify the unit based on its predominant activity.

Later:

  1. 2.7The ANZSIC is a hierarchical classification comprising four levels, namely Divisions (the highest level of the classification), Subdivisions, Groups and Classes (the lowest level of the classification).

Later:

  1. “2.24As classes are grouped into higher levels of aggregation, the degree to which units exhibit similar production functions generally falls. At the higher levels of the classification, emphasis moves increasingly to the output side of the production function, so that at the top of the hierarchy, divisions are created and defined by looking more at what is produced, and less at the activities undertaken to produce that output.
  2. 2.25This has the important consequence of causing units with very different inputs and transformation processes to be classified to the same division, due to similarities in the intent or purpose of the outputs produced. For example, hospitals and homoeopaths are both classified to the Health Care and Social Assistance Division, based on their common purpose to improve human health. This is typical of the Service Divisions.”
  1. [14]
    As already observed, the industrial magistrate classified the appellant as being predominantly engaged in “Other Mining Support Services”. Chapter 5 is entitled “A Guide to the Coding of Certain Activities”, and it deals with industry support services, relevantly:
  1. “5.7There are a number of ANZSIC 2006 industry divisions which contain support service categories:
  • Division A agriculture, Forestry and Fishing;
  • Division B Mining;
  • Division K Financial and Insurance Services; and
  • Division P Education and Training.
  1. 5.8ANZSIC 2006 support service categories were created when it could be established that the output of an activity was wholly consumed by units classified to a single division. For example, support services classes such as 0522 Shearing Services and 0510 Forestry Support Services have been included in Division A Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, as the outputs of the activities identified are wholly consumed by units classified to this division.
  2. 5.9When a service is not wholly consumed by units classified to a single division, it is classified to a ‘general service’ division, according to the type of service being provided. For example, transport services and veterinary services are typically consumed by units in more than one industry division. Therefore, they are classified to the appropriate classes in Division I Transport, Postal and Warehousing, and Division M Professional, Scientific and Technical Services respectively.”
  1. [15]
    The relevant division here is “Mining” which is Division B. It contains various subdivisions and groups and classes:

“BMining

06 Coal Mining

060 Coal Mining

0600 Coal Mining

07 Oil and Gas Extraction

070 Oil and Gas Extracition

0700 Oil and Gas Extraction

08 Metal Ore Mining

080 Metal Ore Mining

0801 Iron Ore Mining

0802 Bauxite Mining

0803 Copper Ore Mining

0804

Gold Ore Mining

0805

Mineral Sand Mining

0806

Nickel Ore Mining

0807

Silver-Lead-Zinc Ore Mining

0809

Other Metal Ore Mining

09 Non-Metallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying

091 Construction Material Mining

0911 Gravel and Sand Quarrying

0919 Other Construction Material Mining

099 Other Non-Metallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying

0990 Other Non-Metallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying

10 Exploration and Other Mining Support Services

101 Exploration

1011 Petroleum Exploration

1012 Mineral Exploration

109 Other Mining Support Services

1090 Other Mining Support Services”[4]

  1. [16]
    The appellant submits that its predominant business activity falls within subdivision 07, Oil and Gas Extraction, group 070, Oil and Gas Extraction and class 0700, Oil and Gas Extraction. The respondent submits that the appellant falls within subdivision 10, Exploration and Other Mining Support Services, group 109, Other Mining Support Services and class 1090, Other Mining Support Services.[5]
  2. [17]
    Chapter 4 explains the methods of classification. Two methods are identified; the “top-down” method and the “direct method”. The gazette notice prescribes the use of the top-down method, but an understanding of both methods is relevant to the appeal. ANZSIC provides:
  1. “4.17There are two different methods used to classify business units to industry, in accordance with the principles outlined above:
  • classification to categories at the broadest level of the classification in the first instance i.e. an ANZSIC division, and subsequently to categories at successively lower levels (‘top- down’); or
  • classification directly to a category at the lowest level of the classification i.e. an ANZSIC class.
  1. 4.18Using the top-down method, units are first classified to a division, then to a subdivision within that division, and so on until the unit is finally classified to a class. The ABS and Statistics NZ use the top-down method of classification to the ANZSIC. ISIC also recommends the use of this method because it ensures better consistency of aggregate data at the higher levels of classification.
  2. 4.19Using the direct method, units are classified directly to the lowest level of classification (i.e. ANZSIC class). Therefore, the unit will inherit the higher level categories to which the class belongs.
  3. 4.20In some cases very different outcomes can result from the two methods. For example, a unit undertakes activities which are primary to three classes where:
    • 40% of its income is derived from activities of wholesaling motor vehicles;
    • 35% of its income is derived from retailing motor vehicles; and
    • 25% of its income is derived from retailing motor vehicle parts.
  4. 4.21Using the ‘top-down’ method.

STEP 1 DETERMINE THE DIVISION TO WHICH THE UNIT BELONGS.

In this case the unit would be classified to Division G Retail Trade, as this is the Division where most activity occurs (i.e. 60% of the unit’s income is derived from its retail activities, compared with 40% from wholesale activities).

STEP 2 DETERMINE THE SUBDIVISION TO WHICH THE UNIT BELONGS.

In this case the unit would be classified to Subdivision 39 Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Parts Retailing, as both retail activities belong to this subdivision.

STEP 3 DETERMINE THE GROUP TO WHICH THE UNIT BELONGS.

In this case the unit would be classified to Group 391 Motor Vehicle Retailing, as the income derived from retailing motor vehicles is greater than that derived from retailing motor vehicle parts.

STEP 4 DETERMINE THE CLASS TO WHICH THE UNIT BELONGS.

In this case the unit would be classified to Class 3911 Car Retailing, as the car retailing activity is predominant.

  1. 4.22Using the direct method, the unit would be classified according to the largest single activity undertaken. Therefore, based on the fact that the largest single income-earning activity of the unit is derived

from wholesaling motor vehicles, the unit would be classified to Class 3501 Car Wholesaling. This example illustrates how different classification outcomes can result from the use of either the top-down or the direct method of classification.

  1. 4.23As mentioned in paragraph 4.18, the top-down method of classification is the preferred method of the ABS and Statistics NZ, as well as ISIC.”
  1. [18]
    Chapter 7 concerns “Divisions Definitions”. Relevantly:

“DIVISION B: MINING

The Mining Division includes units that mainly extract naturally occurring mineral solids, such as coal and ores; liquid minerals, such as crude petroleum; and gases, such as natural gas. The term mining is used in the broad sense to include underground or open cut mining; dredging; quarrying; well operations or evaporation pans; recovery from ore dumps or tailings as well as beneficiation activities (i.e. preparing, including crushing, screening, washing and flotation) and other preparation work customarily performed at the mine site, or as a part of mining activity.

The Mining Division distinguishes two basic activities: mine operation and mining support activities.

Mine operation included units operating mines, quarries, or oil and gas wells on their own account, or for others on a contract or fee basis, as well as mining sites under development.

Mining support activities include units that perform mining services on a contractor fee basis, and exploration (except geophysical surveying).

Units in the Mining Division are grouped and classified according to the natural resource mined or to be mined. Industries include units that extract natural resources, and/or those that beneficiate the mineral mined. Beneficiation is the process whereby the extracted material is reduced to particles that can be separated into mineral and waste, the former suitable for further processing or direct use. The operations that take place in beneficiation are primarily mechanical, such as grinding, washing, magnetic separation, and centrifugal separation. In contrast, manufacturing operations primarily use chemical and electro-chemical processes, such as electrolysis and distillation.” (emphasis added)

Legislative scheme governing review and appeal

  1. [19]
    WorkCover assesses an employer’s premium pursuant to s 54 of the WCR Act. Section 56 allows WorkCover to reassess a premium. Relevantly, s 56 provides:

“56Reassessment of premium for policy

  1. (1)
    This section applies if in either the latest period of insurance for an employer’s policy or any of the 3 preceding periods of insurance—
  1. (a)
    WorkCover has made an assessment for an employer’s policy for the period of insurance; and
  2. (b)
    WorkCover considers that the assessment does not accurately reflect the employer’s liability under the Act for the period.
  1. (2)
    WorkCover may reassess the premium for the period and issue a reassessment premium notice for the period.

…

  1. (6)
      If an employer is aggrieved by WorkCover’s decision, the employer may have the decision reviewed under chapter 13.”
  1. [20]
    Chapter 13 of the WCR Act concerns “reviews and appeals”. By Part 2 of Chapter 13, an assessment by WorkCover under s 54, or reassessment under s 56 may be the subject of an internal review by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator.[6]
  2. [21]
    An employer may apply for a review.[7] The Regulator must decide the review and give notice to the parties with accompanying reasons.[8] The Regulator’s decision may be appealed pursuant to Part 3 of Chapter 13 of the WCR Act. An appeal against a review by the Regulator of a decision of WorkCover to assess or reassess a premium lies to an industrial magistrate.[9] The employer has a right of appeal[10] and s 551 then provides:

“551Appeal about amount of premium

  1. (1)
    This section applies if an appeal is about an amount of premium specified in a premium notice.
  2. (2)
    The notice of appeal must state fully the grounds of appeal and the facts relied on.
  3. (3)
    The appellant is limited to the grounds of appeal stated in the notice.
  4. (4)
    The appellant must pay the premium specified in the notice before the appellant files the notice of appeal.”
  1. [22]
    It is clear from ss 553,[11] s 554[12] and s 558[13] that the appeal is a full merits review.
  1. [23]
    An appeal lies from the Industrial Magistrates Court to the Industrial Court by s 561 of the WCR Act. It provides:

“561Appeal to industrial court

  1. (1)
    A party aggrieved by the industrial magistrate’s or the industrial commission’s decision may appeal to the industrial court.
  2. (2)
    The Industrial Relations Act 2016 applies to the appeal.
  3. (3)
    The appeal is by way of rehearing on the evidence and proceedings before the industrial magistrate or the industrial commission, unless the court orders additional evidence be heard.
  4. (4)
    The court’s decision is final.”
  1. [24]
    There is no doubt that the appellant is a “party aggrieved” by the industrial magistrate’s decision. There was, at least at the time written outlines were exchanged, though, no agreement as to the nature of the appeal.
  1. [25]
    Section 561(2) of the WCR Act provides that the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (IR Act) applies to the appeal.
  1. [26]
    Part 6 of Chapter 11 of the IR Act concerns appeals. Division 2 concerns “appeals to court” which is a reference to this Court.[14] Sections 556, 557 and 558 of the IR Act provide as follows:

“556Appeal from magistrate

A person aggrieved by a decision of a magistrate may appeal against the decision to the court.

557Appeal from commission

  1. (1)
    The Minister or another person aggrieved by a decision of the commission may appeal against the decision to the court on the ground of—
  1. (a)
    error of law; or
  2. (b)
    excess, or want, of jurisdiction.
  1. (2)
    Also, the Minister or another person aggrieved by a decision of the commission may appeal against the decision to the court, with the court’s leave, on a ground other than—
  1. (a)
    error of law; or
  2. (a)
    excess, or want, of jurisdiction.
  1. (3)
    However, subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the Minister or another person aggrieved by a determination of the commission under chapter 4, part 3, division 2.
  2. (4)
    If a person may appeal a decision of the commission under both subsections (1) and (2), the person may only appeal against the decision with the court’s leave on a ground mentioned in subsection (2).
  3. (5)
    In this section—

commission means the commission, other than the full bench constituted by the president and 2 or more other members.

558What court may do

  1. (1)
    On an appeal under section 556 or 557, the court may—
  1. (a)
    dismiss the appeal; or
  2. (b)
    allow the appeal, set aside the decision and substitute another decision; or
  3. (c)
    allow the appeal and amend the decision; or
  4. (d)
    allow the appeal, suspend the operation of the decision and remit the matter, with or without directions, to the commission or an Industrial Magistrates Court to act according to law.
  1. (2)
    Also, the court may direct an industrial magistrate to issue a warrant for the appellant’s arrest if—
  1. (a)
    under the decision that was appealed, the appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment; and
  2. (b)
    the appellant was released from custody by a magistrate under the rules made under section 551; and
  3. (c)
    after the appeal is decided, discontinued or struck out, the appellant is still required to serve all or part of the term of imprisonment.
  1. (3)
    The industrial magistrate must comply with the direction.
  2. (4)
    When arrested, the appellant must be taken to a corrective services facility within the meaning of the Corrective Services Act 2006 to serve the unexpired portion of the term of imprisonment to which the appellant was sentenced.”[15]
  1. [27]
    Section 567 appears in Division 5 of Part 6 of the IR Act. Division 5 is headed “General” and ss 565 and 567 provide:

565When leave for appeal must be given

If an application for leave to appeal is made under section 554, 557 or 560, the Court of Appeal, court or full bench—

  1. (a)
    must give leave if it is satisfied it is in the public interest to do so; and
  2. (b)
    may not give leave other than under paragraph (a)…

567Nature of appeal

  1. (1)
    An appeal to an industrial tribunal, other than a public service appeal to the commission, is by way of re-hearing on the record.
  2. (2)
    However, the industrial tribunal may hear evidence afresh or additional evidence if the industrial tribunal considers it appropriate to effectively dispose of the appeal.”
  1. [28]
    Burton v Workers’ Compensation Regulator[16] concerned an appeal by a worker from a decision of the QIRC which confirmed the Regulator’s decision to deny compensation under the WCR Act.
  2. [29]
    I held in Burton that, on an appeal from the QIRC under s 561 of the WCR Act, s 561(2) of that Act and ss 557 and 567 of the IR Act operated so as to limit the appeal to grounds of error of law or excess or want of jurisdiction. After referring to s 557 of the IR Act and observing that s 561(2) of the WCR Act provided that the IR Act applied to such an appeal, I said:
  1. “[16]
    There is a potential tension between s 561(3) of the Workers’ Compensation Act and s 557 of the IR Act. Usually an appeal ‘by way of rehearing’ contemplates the appeal court making its own assessment of the evidence and drawing its own inferences, but acknowledging the advantage of the court or tribunal at first instance in hearing the witnesses give their evidence.[17] An appeal based only on an error of law or excess or want of jurisdiction is a narrower appeal in that error must be shown upon the factual findings made below or some error of law must be shown in the fact finding below.[18]
  2. [17]
    Section 567 of the IR Act provides:

‘567Nature of appeal

  1. (1)
    An appeal to an industrial tribunal, other than a public service appeal to the commission, is by way of re-hearing on the record.
  2. (2)
    However, the industrial tribunal may hear evidence afresh or additional evidence if the industrial tribunal considers it appropriate to effectively dispose of the appeal.’
  1. [18]
    Section 567(1) refers to an ‘appeal by way of rehearing on the record’ and s 567(2) provides for leave to be given to adduce further evidence. Reading ss 557 and 567 together, it is clear that the term, ‘by way of re-hearing’[19] is not to be used in its usual sense. The appeal is on the grounds of error of law or want of jurisdiction and that is determined by ‘re-hearing’ in the sense that without leave, any error of law or want of jurisdiction must be identified on the record below.[20] Section 561(3) of the Workers’ Compensation Act should be similarly construed.
  2. [19]
    Section 557(2) of the IR Act provides for an appeal on grounds other than error of law or excess or want of jurisdiction, but only by leave. That leave may only be granted in limited circumstances.[21] No application for leave has been made here.”
  1. [30]
    Burton therefore decided that on an appeal from the QIRC an appellant is restricted to grounds of error of law or jurisdiction except by leave. Although the respondent initially sought to rely on Burton to similarly restrict the present appeal, it conceded that Burton had no application. Burton applied s 557 of the IR Act to appeals under the WCR Act, but s 557 only concerns appeals from the QIRC. Section 556 of the IR Act governs appeals from industrial magistrates and that does not prescribe the same restrictions as s 557.
  1. [31]
    At some stage, the principles established in Burton (a decision of mine) may have to be revisited. In deciding Burton, I was not referred to some relevant legislative history. Section 561 of the WCR Act was amended in 2011 by s 66 of the Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2011. The Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 was accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum. Clause 66 of the Bill at that point expressly limited appeals under the WCR Act to grounds of error of law or jurisdiction. The Explanatory Memorandum confirmed that intention. The Bill was then amended to remove that limitation.[22] The explanatory note for the amendments to the Bill suggests that the intention of the clause as amended[23] was not to limit the grounds of appeal to errors of law or jurisdiction.
  1. [32]
    The object of statutory construction is to discern the meaning of the words actually appearing in the legislation by reference to relevant context which includes legislative history.[24] Whether consideration of the history of the amendment to s 561 leads to a construction different to that held in Burton is a matter for consideration on another day.
  1. [33]
    Section 561 describes the appeal as “by way of rehearing”. The concept of an appeal by way of rehearing is well understood,[25] but as Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd[26] shows, the nature of an appeal and the limits of the appellate court’s jurisdiction are always ultimately matters of construction of the statute granting the right of appeal.
  1. [34]
    The appeal proceeded on the basis that it was by way of rehearing on the materials below, where I must conduct my own review of the evidence and findings below and where I can draw my own conclusions on the facts recognising any advantage of the industrial magistrate having seen and heard the witnesses.[27]

The hearing and decision below

  1. [35]
    The evidence before the industrial magistrate came from three witnesses:
  1. Matthew Loth, who was the East Coast and Papua New Guinea Country Manager for the appellant;
  2. Nargy Sokar, who was the appellant’s Finance Manager;[28]
  3. Ruth Alison Moroney, who is a Senior Appeals Officer of the respondent.[29]
  1. [36]
    Affidavits of each witness were received and Mr Loth was cross-examined. Neither Mr Sokar nor Ms Moroney gave oral evidence.
  1. [37]
    The industrial magistrate identified, as her functions:
  1. to determine the predominant business activity of the appellant;
  2. then determine the WIC which corresponds to or most closely describes the predominant business activity of the appellant.[30]
  1. [38]
    Observing that the appellant did not own or operate any oil or gas extraction sites or businesses[31] (which finding is not controversial), the industrial magistrate made the critical factual findings:

“[39]  Relevantly the evidence establishes:

  1. a)
    SAPL[32] is an oil and gas services company and its primary role on client projects is to enable the extraction of oil and gas through the supply of specialist engineering services, technologies, equipment, software and data solutions and other assorted services. These were the words used by Mr Loth. The products and services, in all of their forms, provided by SAPL are to enable and facilitate their clients to undertake oil and gas extraction;
  2. b)
    The services and products cover all stages of oil and gas extraction, from exploration to production and commercialization of subterranean assets. Schlumberger - including in Queensland can supply products and services that encompass all aspects of the operation of oil and gas wells relating to extraction. These includes downhole pump services, wells, directional drilling, surface production equipment, reservoir performance enhancement and the provision of products and other services.
  3. c)
    SAPL’s website and adverting in trade publications confirm that the company provides products, including infrastructure and consumable products, as well as the services and technology and project management necessary to enable the extraction of oil and gas by their clients;
  4. d)
    The revenue of the company is derived from if not exclusively, then almost so, from clients that themselves perform the extraction processes;
  5. e)
    More than 70% of SAPL’s employees are involved in the provision, design, installation and oversight of products used by other companies or in the provision of services to clients to enable them to extract oil and gas at sites owned or operated by those entities;
  6. f)
    More than 70% of SAPL’s expenditure on wages is allocated to the employees carrying out these aspects of its business;
  7. g)
    Employees of SAPL do not undertake activities that are directly involved in the extraction of oil and gas;
  8. h)
    SAPL does not own or operate any oil or gas fields or sites.”
  1. [39]
    The industrial magistrate then applied those findings in accordance with the gazette notice and the ANZSIC and observed:

“[50] Determination of the appropriate WIC requires identification of which of the two classes identified most closely matches the predominant business activity of SAPL.”

  1. [40]
    The industrial magistrate concluded that the appellant fell within the “Other Mining Support Services” class. This was the WIC adopted by the respondent so her Honour dismissed the appeal.

Grounds of appeal

  1. [41]
    The appellant relied on seven grounds of appeal. They are:

“1. The decision by the Industrial Magistrate is incorrect.

  1. The Industrial Magistrate erred in the factual findings supporting the decision, including by finding that:
    1. (a)
      the appellant does not itself operate any oil and gas extraction sites or businesses. Rather it is the appellant’s clients that do so;
    2. (b)
      the predominant business activity of the appellant is the sale of products and provision of support services to units operating in the oil and gas industry;
    3. (c)
      the appellant is not itself involved in the extraction of oil or gas but rather enables other entities to undertake that activity;
    4. (d)
      Schlumberger was most accurately or properly described as providing support services.
  2. The Industrial Magistrate should have made a number of different findings based on the evidence, including findings that:
    1. (a)
      the appellant operates and is involved in oil·and gas extraction sites on behalf of others;
    2. (b)
      the appellant provides both services and also products which are used in the process of the extraction of oil and gas; and,
    3. (c)
      the predominant business activity of the appellant is the extraction of oil and gas and the sale of products and provision of services involved in the extraction.
  3. The Industrial Magistrate should have decided that the appropriate WIC to apply to the Schlumberger’s predominant business activity was WIC 070007 - Oil and Gas Extraction.
  4. There was an error in the application of the ‘top down approach’ by the Industrial Magistrate and the construction of the relevant legislative scheme, including by:
    1. (a)
      wrongly finding or accepting that only entities which owned oil and gas wells could come within the WIC contended for by the appellant; and,
    2. (b)
      wrongly undertaking the task required by the legislative scheme on the evidence.
  5. Insufficient weight was given to the evidence produced by Schlumberger.
  6. The decision as made by WorkCover, confirmed by the Respondent and by the Industrial Magistrate, should have been set aside and the Magistrate should have determined the appeal in favour of Schlumberger.”
  1. [42]
    Ground 1 alleges that the industrial magistrate erred. Ground 4 asserts the appellant’s final position, namely that its predominant business activity should have been classified as Oil and Gas Extraction. Ground 7 is in the same vein. Ground 6 alleges that there was insufficient weight given to the appellant’s evidence by the industrial magistrate. The evidence though must all be reassessed on the appeal as the appeal is one by way of rehearing.
  1. [43]
    Grounds 2, 3 and 5 are the substantive ones.

Ground 5 - Error of approach; the “top-down” method

  1. [44]
    It is convenient to deal with ground 5 first. It is submitted by the appellant that the industrial magistrate erroneously adopted the direct method and this is shown most clearly from paragraph [50] of the judgment.[33] It is submitted by the appellant that the industrial magistrate picked between those two classifications rather than working downwards from the relevant division.
  1. [45]
    The top-down method was explained in Otis Elevator Company v WorkCover Queensland:[34]

“The WorkCover Industry Classifications set out in column 2 of the WorkCover Queensland Notice No.1 of l998 as amended are the industry classifications published in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification 1993 (ANZSlC). (There are some exclusions at Note No. 1 to Schedule 1.). It is common ground that the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification 1993 (ANZSIC) should be taken into account as extrinsic material to assist in the construction of Schedule 1. For reasons given in WorkCover Queensland v Shagadelic Pty Ltd (No. C5 of 2001) I am content to adopt that course. But like any other document the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification 1993 (ANZSIC) should be read as a whole. Both before the Industrial Magistrate and on the appeal, the argument has been about whether classification 2865 12, Lifting and Material Handling Equipment Manufacturing or classification 4232 14, Electrical Services is the classification which corresponds or most closely describes the whole of the appellant’s business activity. Litigation does tend to focus argument in that way. However, it seems to me that the correct approach is to enquire which Division encompasses the appellant’s business activity, which of the Subdivisions within that Division most comfortably will absorb it, which Group within the Subdivision fits it most comfortably and finally, which classification within the group corresponds with or most closely describes the appellant’s business activity. If one adopts that approach one is inexorably led through Division E (Construction), Subdivision 42 (Construction Trade Services)  Group 423  (Installation Trade Services to classification 4232 (Electrical Services). That classification is in the following terms: –

4232Electrical Services

This class consists of units mainly engaged in the installation of electrical wiring or fittings in buildings or other construction projects. Electrical work arising from the installation of appliances is included in this class.

Exclusions / References Units mainly engaged in

  1. (a)
    repairing electricity transmission or distribution lines are included in Class 4122 Non-Building Construction n.e.c.
  2. (b)
    installing fire and/or security systems (except closed circuit video surveillance systems) are included in Class 4234 Fire and Security System Services; and
  3. (c)
    installing domestic electrical appliances not requiring electrical work or in repairing electrical appliances are included in Class 5234 Domestic Appliance Retailing.

Primary Activities

Closed circuit video surveillance systems installation

Domestic exhaust fans installation Electric light or power installation

Electric wiring installation on construction projects

Electrical work on construction

projects”.[35]

Repair or maintenance of electrical wiring (except of electricity transmission or distribution lines)

  1. [46]
    It was common ground that the relevant division was Division B - Mining. Moving down the classification, consistently with the top-down approach, the industrial magistrate was required to select the appropriate subdivision. In order to select the appropriate subdivision, one has to construe the ANZSIC as a whole, including provisions such as the definitions in Chapter 7 which are set out in paragraph [18] of these reasons and to which I will later return.[36]
  2. [47]
    Having determined that the predominant activity of the appellant was not extraction but was mining support services, she selected subdivision 10 rather than subdivision 07. Having selected subdivision 10, the industrial magistrate decided not to resort to group 101 Exploration, but selected group 109 “Other Mining Support Services”. That then took her Honour down to class 1090 “Other Mining Support Services”.
  1. [48]
    There was no error in the industrial magistrate’s approach assuming that her Honour’s selection of subdivision 10 rather than subdivision 07 was correct. The correctness of that decision is the subject of grounds 2 and 3.

Grounds 2 and 3 - finding that the appellant’s predominant business activity was provision of services

  1. [49]
    Although the two grounds of appeal are expressed in terms of factual errors, their resolution depends largely upon the proper construction of the ANZSIC.
  1. [50]
    Broadly, the industrial magistrate drew a distinction between businesses which operate mining and those who provide services to those who operate mining.
  1. [51]
    The appellant submits that this is the wrong approach. It points not only to subdivisions 07 and 10, but also subdivisions 06, 08 and 09. Those subdivisions are:
  1. 06 Coal Mining;
  2. 08 Metal Ore Mining;
  3. 09 Non-Metallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying.
  1. [52]
    The appellant rightly submits that subdivisions 06, 07, 08 and 09 each concern a particular species of mining activity. Subdivision 010, relevantly here, deals with mining support services across all types of mining activity.
  1. [53]
    It follows, the appellant submits, that given that the type of mining with which it is concerned is gas extraction, subdivision 07 is engaged, not subdivision 010.
  1. [54]
    That submission ought to be rejected. The definition provisions in Chapter 7 specifically draw a distinction between “mine operation” and “mining support activities”.[37] That carries through to subdivisions 06, 07, 08, 09 and 10:
  1. subdivision 06, group 060, class 0600 “consists of [businesses] mainly engaged in open-cut or underground mining of black or brown coal”;
  2. subdivision 07, group 070, class 0700 “consists of [businesses] engaged in producing … natural gas … through the extraction of … gas deposits”;
  3. subdivision 08, group 080, class 0801 “consists of [businesses] mainly engaged in mining iron ore or iron sands …”;
  4. subdivision 09, group 091, class 0911 “consists of [businesses] mainly engaged in quarrying, washing or screening sand or natural gravel”;
  5. subdivision 10, group 109, class 1090 “consist of [businesses] mainly engaged in providing mining support services integral to the mining process”.
  1. [55]
    The “mining process” referred to in subdivision 10 must include the mining activities described in subdivisions 06, 07, 08 and 09.
  1. [56]
    It follows that the industrial magistrate was correct to direct her attention to the activity of the appellant and determine whether it was “engaged in producing … natural gas” or was “providing mining support services” to those “engaged in producing … natural gas”.
  1. [57]
    The appellant further points to the term “services” used in both the definition provisions and in subdivision 10 of class 1090. The appellant, through its business, provides goods as well as services and therefore, it is submitted, does not fall within subdivision 10 or class 1090.
  1. [58]
    The ANZSIC must be read as a whole and the meaning of the actual text objectively determined by reference to purpose and context. “Services” might in some context not include the provision of goods, but here it does. The distinction drawn is between businesses who are mining and those who are supporting mining activities. That support may be provided through services and goods. In that context, the provision of goods is, relevantly here, a service.
  1. [59]
    Direct evidence of the nature of the appellant’s activities came from Mr Loth.
  1. [60]
    The appellant accepts that it does not own the wells. Presumably then, any gas won from the extraction is not the property of the appellant. The thrust of Mr Loth’s affidavit is that the appellant is involved in all aspects of the provision of oil and gas extraction and is therefore “engaged in producing … natural gas”.
  1. [61]
    Mr Loth produced three diagrams. These diagrams showed the various steps undertaken in gas extraction. There are three stages: assessing the gas reservoir, making the well and producing the reservoir. Mr Loth swore:

“Schlumberger’s products and services are applied in performing the activities illustrated in the [diagrams].”[38]

  1. [62]
    Mr Loth said that the appellant produced an “end to end service” to its clients.[39] In answer to a leading question:

“So it’s - would it be fair to summarise that as its effectively carrying out the entire operation of the process of extracting the gas? --- That’s correct.”[40]

  1. [63]
    What the evidence actually shows is that the appellant’s clients extract the gas deposits through the three stages and the appellant provides such services to them as required.
  1. [64]
    The fact that the appellant does not provide end to end service to every client on every gas extraction site is made clear in the affidavit of Mr Sokar. He explains that there are seven business lines grouped into four divisions. They are:
  1. reservoir performance;
  2. production systems;
  3. well construction;
  4. data solutions.[41]
  1. [65]
    He then explains that some 87 per cent of the appellant’s revenue derived in Queensland comes from its four largest clients and 84 per cent from its three largest, Origin, Santos and QGC.[42] Mr Sokar swore that the percentage of total revenue for each division received from those three clients is:

“Client

Reservoir Performance

Well Construction

Production Systems

Digital

Origin

69%

1%

20%

53%

Santos

21%

97%

24%

0%

QGC

  

39%

17%”[43]

  1. [66]
    It is obvious from that table that the appellant is not producing an “end to end” service to its three major clients. Different services at different stages are being provided to each of them.
  1. [67]
    Mr Loth, in his affidavit, says this:

“5.Schlumberger is an oil and gas services company and its primary role on client projects is to enable the extraction of oil and gas through the supply of specialist engineering services, technologies, equipment, software and data solutions and other associated services.

  1. Schlumberger offers a range of equipment and services spanning the process of oil and gas extraction, from exploration through to production.” (emphasis added)
  1. [68]
    It can be seen that Mr Loth describes the appellant as a “oil and gas services company”. That is an accurate description. It is the clients who are extracting the oil and gas and the appellant is producing services to “enable the extraction”. The appellant’s role is to provide equipment and services and the client’s role is to extract the gas.
  1. [69]
    Mr Loth goes on in his affidavit to explain the various services which the appellant provides. It is obvious that it is the client who is conducting the extraction with the assistance of services which are supplied by the appellant. This was made clear by Mr Loth under cross-examination:

“Thank you. It’s fair - and please correct me if I’m wrong in saying that this is a fair proposition - but to summarise your affidavit, it appears that the services that the appellant provides in Queensland involve either the sale of products to some of your client companies undertaking oil and gas extraction- that’s one, correct?---Correct.

The provision of services, whether it be engineering consulting services, other expert services, data logging, analysis of data - that type of services - to clients undertaking oil and gas extraction ?--- That’s correct.

And then also the actual provision of some services to those clients, as we established going through some of the areas in your affidavit, for example drilling, cementing of casings, that type of service?--- Correct, yes. I would add there is one missing, which is the provision and sale of softwares. I don’t know if that was intended in one of the things, but I wanted say there’s a fourth one there which is, you know, provision and sale of softwares which are used by our clients.”[44]

  1. [70]
    Earlier in the cross-examination, Mr Loth was taken specifically to paragraph 5 of his affidavit.[45] This exchange occurred:

“All right. Thank you. You can put that affidavit aside. Can I take it that in paragraph 5 of your affidavit, that what you’ve provided there is a broad but accurate summary, basically, of the activities that the appellant undertakes in Queensland?---Correct.

And what that paragraph seems to indicate to me, Mr Loth, is that effectively the appellant is a service company assisting client companies that are undertaking oil and gas extraction: is that a fair summary?---Well yes, it is, and certainly that - we are not - we do not own oil and gas activities. We - we deliver the full end to end for our clients to deliver oil and gas producing wells and fields.

You don’t own: can I also confirm that you don’t operate any wells - the company itself doesn’t operate any wells?---Well we do operate wells in other parts of the world. In Queensland we do not operate any wells.”[46]

  1. [71]
    For the reasons earlier explained, the reference to “end to end” service means the appellant can, on request, produce goods and services at any point in the process, but clients pick and choose. Therefore, the appellant’s role is to provide goods and services as requested along the various stages of production to clients who are themselves undertaking the business of extracting the gas.
  1. [72]
    Ms Moroney exhibits to her affidavit emails from the appellant to WorkCover. In those emails it is said:

“… kindly noted that we are a technology company, not just mining and construction company …”

And later:

“Largest revenue generation on average over recent years in Queensland has been our pump sales G-Kudu pumps. They sell down hole pumps and associated equipment for use by our clients in oil and wells …”

And later in answer to a request for a summary of the appellant’s business:

“Principally, supplier of personnel, products and services to oil and gas industry including the supply of technology, integrated project management, information solutions, drilling equipment, well cementing and simulation, productivity consulting, software, information management, seismic surveys, drilling fluids, waste management systems, engineering services. In Queensland the major services provided are - Supply of down hold pump products, Software sales and services, Wireline services, Drilling Services and well cementing and stimulation services.”

  1. [73]
    These emails explain that the appellant’s predominant activity is the provision of services to clients who extract the gas.
  1. [74]
    Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that the factual findings by the industrial magistrate were correct.
  1. [75]
    Therefore, grounds 2 and 3 are not made out.

Disposition of the appeal

  1. [76]
    All grounds of appeal have failed and the appeal must be dismissed.
  1. [77]
    At the hearing of the appeal, both parties urged that I make orders with a view to deciding costs on written submissions.
  1. [78]
    It is ordered:
  1. Appeal dismissed.
  2. Parties file and exchange written submissions on costs by 29 May 2023.
  3. Each party has leave to file an application for leave to make oral submissions on costs by 5 June 2023.
  4. In the absence of any application for leave to make oral submissions on costs by 12 June 2023, the issue of costs will be determined on any written submissions filed and with no oral hearing

Footnotes

[1]Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 5(2)(aa), (d), Chapter 2, Part 2, Division 1.

[2]Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, ss 46 and 48.

[3]Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, ss 380, 381, 383 and 384.

[4]Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification 2006 (ANZSIC), Chapter 6, ANZSIC Division, Subdivision, Group and Class Codes and Titles.

[5]See the numbering system explained at Chapter 6, paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2.

[6]Chapter 13, ss 540(1)(a)(ii) and 540(1)(a)(iii).

[7]Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, ss 541 and 542.

[8]Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, ss 546(1) and 546(3).

[9]Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 548A(2)(b).

[10]Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 549.

[11]Which applies the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, Chapter 7, Part 2 (Disclosure) and Chapter 9, Part 4 (Alternative dispute resolution processes).

[12]Which provides for the exchange of evidence.

[13]Which concerns powers of appeal.

[14]Industrial Relations Act 2016, Schedule 5, Dictionary and s 407.

[15]Section 559 is the last provision in Division 2 and has no relevance here.

[16][2022] ICQ 017.

[17]Turnbull v Medical Board (NSW) [1976] 2 NSWLR 281 at 297, Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235 and Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118.

[18]Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616 at 619-622 and Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1 at 40-41.

[19] Which may have different meanings depending upon the particular statute; Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616 at 620-621.

[20]Nutley v President, Industrial Court (2019) 1 QR 354 at [25]-[26].

[21]Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 565.

[22]Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. Amendments agreed to during consideration.

[23]Which became the amended s 561.

[24]Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (NT) (2009) 239 CLR 27 at [47], SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 91 ALJR 936 at [14], R v A2; R v Magennis; R v Vaziri (2019) 269 CLR 507 at [32]-[35].

[25]Turnbull v New South Wales Medical Board [1976] 2 NSWLR 281 at 297.

[26](1976) 135 CLR 616.

[27]See generally Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129.

[28]Mr Loth and Mr Sokar were witnesses for the appellant.

[29]Ms Moroney was a witness for the respondent.

[30]Schlumberger Australia Pty Ltd v Workers’ Compensation Regulator, unreported, Magistrate Merrin, 4 December 2022 at [13]-[14] quoting Capilano Honey Ltd v Workers Compensation Regulator [2018] ICQ 002.

[31]Schlumberger Australia Pty Ltd v Workers’ Compensation Regulator, unreported, Magistrate Merrin, 4 December 2022 at [38].

[32]A reference to the appellant.

[33]Set out at paragraph [39] of these reasons.

[34](2001) 166 QGIG 424.

[35]Page 2 – 3. See also Capilano Honey Ltd v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2018] ICQ 002 and WorkCover Queensland v Shagadelic Pty Ltd (2001) 166 QGIG 422.

[36]See paragraph [3].

[37]See paragraph [18] of these reasons.

[38]Mr Loth’s affidavit, paragraph 10.

[39]Trial transcript 1-23, ll 15-25.

[40]Trial transcript 1-23, ll 29-30.

[41]Mr Sokar’s affidavit, paragraph 10.

[42]Mr Sokar’s affidavit, paragraphs 14 and 16.

[43]Mr Sokar’s affidavit, paragraph 16.

[44]Trial transcript 1-22, ll 31-45.

[45]Which appears at paragraph [67] of these reasons.

[46]Trial transcript 1-18, ll 17-30.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Schlumberger Australia Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Schlumberger Australia Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • MNC:

    [2023] ICQ 7

  • Court:

    ICQ

  • Judge(s):

    Davis J, President

  • Date:

    15 May 2023

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (NT) (2009) 239 CLR 27
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2009) 239 CLR 27
Cite 2 - (2009) 239 CLR 27
Aldrich v Boulton[2001] 2 Qd R 235; [2000] QCA 501
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] 2 Qd R 235
Cite 2 - [2001] 2 Qd R 235
Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1976) 135 CLR 616
Cite 2 - (1976) 135 CLR 616
Cite 3 - (1976) 135 CLR 616
Cite 4 - (1976) 135 CLR 616
Burton v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] ICQ 17
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] ICQ 17
Cite 2 - [2022] ICQ 17
Capilano Honey Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2018] ICQ 2
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] ICQ 2
Cite 2 - [2018] ICQ 2
Cite 3 - [2018] ICQ 2
Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2000) 203 CLR 1
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) 214 CLR 118
Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2019) 266 CLR 129
Cite 2 - (2019) 266 CLR 129
Nutley v President of the Industrial Court of Queensland(2019) 1 QR 354; [2019] QSC 167
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2019) 1 QR 354
Cite 2 - (2019) 1 QR 354
Otis Elevator Company v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 166 QGIG 424
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 166 QGIG 424
Cite 2 - (2001) 166 QGIG 424
R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2019) 269 CLR 507
Cite 2 - (2019) 269 CLR 507
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Water Protection (2017) 91 ALJR 936
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2017) 91 ALJR 936
Turnbull v New South Wales Medical Board (1976) 2 NSWLR 281
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1976) 2 NSWLR 281
Cite 2 - (1976) 2 NSWLR 281
Cite 3 - (1976) 2 NSWLR 281
WorkCover Queensland v Shagadelic Pty Ltd (2001) 166 QGIG 422
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 166 QGIG 422
Cite 2 - (2001) 166 QGIG 422

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) v Workers' Compensation Regulator & Neville Stretton [2023] ICQ 152 citations
Turay v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 134 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.