Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2015
  4. Johns v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2015] QIRC 175

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

Johns v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[2015] QIRC 175

Johns v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[2015] QIRC 175

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION: 

Johns v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 175

PARTIES:

Johns, Susan

(Appellant)

v

Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2015/190

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against a decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

DELIVERED ON:

12 October 2015

HEARING DATES:

11 September 2015

2 October 2015 (Regulator's Further Submission)

9 October 2015 (Appellant's Further Submission)

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Thompson

ORDERS:

  1. The Appeal is dismissed.
  2. The Decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) dated 9 June 2015 is upheld.
  3. The claim is not one for acceptance.
  4. The Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs of and incidental to this Appeal to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION ‑ APPEAL AGAINST DECISION ‑ Decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) ‑ Appellant bears onus of proof ‑ Standard of proof ‑ Balance of probabilities ‑ Witness evidence ‑ Appellant was a "worker" - Appellant suffered a personal injury - the injury did not arise out of, or in the course of the Appellant's employment - the personal injury suffered was not as a result of her employment being a significant contributing factor to the injury

- Appeal dismissed - Decision of the Regulator confirmed - Claim is not one for acceptance - Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs of and incidental to this Appeal or failing agreement to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 11, s 32, s 550,

State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q‑COMP and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447

SPE Pty Ltd v Q-COMP and Gary Clifford Fuller (C/2010/19) - Decision - http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au

Comcare v PVYW (2013) 250 CLR 246

Campbell v Australian Leisure & Hospitality Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2015] ICQ 016

Oaks Hotels and Resorts (Qld) v Blackwood and Anor [2014] ICQ 023

Comcare v Mather (1995) 37 ALD 493

Huhu v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 021

Eagle v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator [2014] QIRC 020

Balderson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 051

Wilson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 097

Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] QCA 48

Peter James Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100

O'Loughlin v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1000

Kavanagh v the Commonwealth [1960] HCA 25

Whittingham v the Commissioner of Railways (WA) [1931] HCA 49

Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Limited [1992] HCA 21

Q-COMP AND John Kennerley and Qantas Airways Limited (C/2012/16) John Kennerley AND Q-COMP and Qantas Airways Limited (C/2012/18) - Decision http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au

O'Loughlin v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (2015) FCA 1000

Stewart v Repatriation Commission [1998] AATA 850

APPEARANCES:

Mr R. Clutterbuck of Counsel, instructed by Turnbull Mylne for the Appellant.

Mr P. O'Neill, Counsel directly instructed by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the Respondent.

Decision

  1. [1]
    A Notice of Appeal was lodged with the Industrial Registrar on 8 July 2015 by Susan Johns (Johns) pursuant to s 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against a decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (the Regulator) released on 9 June 2015. 
  1. [2]
    The decision of the Regulator was to confirm the decision of Woolworths Limited to reject an application by the Appellant for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Act.

Relevant Legislation

  1. [3]
    The Legislation pertinent to this Appeal is 32 of the Act:

"32 Meaning of injury

  1. (1)
    An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if -
  1. (a)
    for an injury other than a psychiatric or psychological disorder - the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury".

Nature of Appeal

  1. [4]
    The Appeal to the Commission is by way of a hearing de novo in which the onus of proof falls upon the Appellant.

Standard of Proof

  1. [5]
    The standard of proof upon which an Appeal of this nature must be determined is that of "on the balance of probabilities".

Evidence

  1. [6]
    In the course of the proceedings, evidence was provided by two witnesses.
  1. [7]
    The Commission, in deciding to précis the evidence of the witnesses, and submissions, notes that all the material has, for the purposes of this decision, been considered in its entirety.

Witness Lists

  1. [8]
    The witness for the Appellant was Johns.
  1. [9]
    The witness for the Regulator was Pat Wilson (Wilson)

Appellant

Johns

  1. [10]
    Johns, a service cashier at Woolworths Harbour Town gave evidence that on Sunday 11 August 2013 she had obtained a few items of groceries from her usual place of work and proceeded through the express checkout lanes at around 2.30 pm.  At that time Wilson who was on duty as a service supervisor spoke to her mentioning there had been some changes to the roster.  As a service supervisor Wilson would have had access to staffing rotations and rosters so after going to the chemist Johns returned to the Woolworths store entering through the main entrance and proceeded to a restricted area for the purposes of checking her roster.
  1. [11]
    At the time in question her work hours for Monday were 11.30 am to 4.30 pm on operations and from 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm as front end supervisor.  Johns was shown two rosters for the periods 5 August 2013 and 12 August 2013 [Exhibits 1 and 2] which were in different formats although both featured her name and it was her evidence that Exhibit 1 was the format she observed on 11 August 2013.  She noticed that for the following week her hours had increased.
  1. [12]
    Following inspection of the roster Johns left the area and when heading towards the entrance slipped and fell injuring her ankle.  On the arrival of the duty manager she pointed to a piece of greenery on the floor which she had slipped on causing her injury.  She was assisted to the manager's office where more ice was applied to her ankle, a bandage was applied and with the assistance of a trolley hobbled to her car and drove home.  The following day being in extreme pain she attended the Robina Hospital.
  1. [13]
    In terms of her rosters she normally knew exactly what she was doing from week to week.
  1. [14]
    Under cross-examination Johns gave evidence that in 2013 she had an old computer at home which had no access to the internet nor did she own a smartphone at the time in question [Transcript p. 1-12].  On being taken to the roster document [Exhibit 1] she confirmed that the last day of paid work (at the time of the injury) had been Thursday 8 August 2013 and that she had not been rostered on Sunday 11 August 2013 [Transcript p. 1-13].  Her only reason for attending Woolworths Harbour Town was entirely personal [Transcript p. 1-13].  In the seven years she had worked at Harbour Town she had only on one or two occasions worked with Wilson and had never been supervised by her [Transcript p. 1-13].  On 11 August 2013 the duty manager at the time Johns checked the roster was Sarah Fyles (Fyles) with Johns acknowledging that Fyles had not told her to check the roster [Transcript p. 1-14].
  1. [15]
    It was put to Johns that at no time on Sunday 11 August 2013 had Wilson told her to check the roster which she replied:

"Well, there certainly - I would not have gone back into the store after having left the store with my purchases to go out and check my rosters." [Transcript p. 1-15].

  1. [16]
    Johns was taken to an earlier version of events provided to Woolworths in support of a public liability claim which she described as a "shorter version" [Transcript p. 1‑15].  This was provided on 3 September 2013 and contained a version of what occurred on 11 August 2013.  Johns conceded that it contained no mention of the conversation with Wilson on that day and in fact had stated "As this is the store in which I am employed and having completed my shopping, I decided to check my roster for the coming week".  Johns denied that was the "truth" with regards to what happened on 11 August 2013 [Transcript p. 1-16].  Johns did not accept the proposition she had not re-entered the store to check her roster [Transcript p. 1-16].  Johns accepted that on 25 March 2013 she had signed a roster arrangement document for her roster for the next year but it was the case rosters could change in three or six months.  There was an amended document signed in December 2013 [Transcript p. 1-17].  Johns accepted that the times indicated in Exhibit 2 that she was to work in the week commencing 12 August 2013 matched up with Exhibit 4 other than for an extra shift on the Tuesday [Transcript p. 1-18].  She believed that she had seen the roster showing an earlier start on Monday 12 August 2013 [Transcript p. 1-18].  Johns had not produced a copy of that roster [Transcript p. 1-18].  On the proposition of having gone home and checked the roster online, Johns replied:

"I could have, but because I was just exiting the store and I had told Pat Wilson that, oh, I'm not doing it now.  I'll come back in and do it because it was easy.  I was in the vicinity of the store.  So I went back in to check the roster" [Transcript p. 1-19].

  1. [17]
    Consistent with her statement of 3 September 2013 it was put that she had simply made a decision to check the roster without advice from anybody to which Johns replied "No" [Transcript p. 1-20].
  1. [18]
    Note:  In re-examination Johns was taken to a document not having been previously before the proceedings.  The Commission allowed Johns to see the document subject to Counsel for the Regulator having the opportunity to reopen the cross-examination of Johns in relation to the document.  The document was tendered in the proceedings [Exhibit 5] (dated 12 November 2014) and was a further statement regarding the incident of 11 August 2013.
  1. [19]
    Further cross-examination of Johns went to the document [Exhibit 5] where it was suggested the document was created as a response to an inadequate offer to her previous claim.  Johns' evidence was that the original offer would not have covered her medical expenses.  Johns accepted it was at this time she switched tact and decided to lodge a claim for workers' compensation [Transcript p. 1-29].  Johns did not accept that the claim in the 12 November 2014 document was a recent invention, made to include the alleged conversation with Wilson to support her claim for workers' compensation [Transcript p. 1-30].  Nor did she accept the true version of events was that contained in the far more contemporaneous statement of 3 September 2013 [Transcript p. 1-30].

Regulator

Wilson

  1. [20]
    Wilson, a long-term employee of Woolworths works as a self-service attendant at the Harbour Town store, also occupying the position as supervisor on Sundays and some Mondays.  Additionally she is one of two Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees (SDA) representatives at the store having held that role for "about 18 years".
  2. [21]
    The self-service role requires her to provide assistance to customers who effectively process their own sales should difficulties arise.  During her time at Harbour Town she had never worked with Johns one-on-one but as the Monday supervisor she may at times tell her which register to operate or to close off for lunch.  On Sundays as supervisor her role entails organising staff on the registers relying upon "grids" which inform of the staff available on that day.  The role does not include any involvement in the preparation of rosters with that task undertaken by the head supervisor.
  1. [22]
    Wilson was rostered on duty on 11 August 2013 which required her to manage staff that were all juniors and was generally occupied providing assistance to the younger staff members.  Wilson was aware that Johns sustained a fall at Woolworths Harbour Town store on 11 August 2013 but prior to the fall she had not spoken to Johns at all on that day and had not spoken to her about roster issues.  There was no conversation prior to the fall and after the fall as Johns was leaving the shop there was a conversation recalled by Wilson in evidence along the lines of:

"The nature of that conversation was as I was walking up to express and she was coming out.  I asked her was she okay, and she said that it's a bit sore, and I did say to her well, what were you doing here?  And she says Jeff had no milk for his coffee, so I had to come across to get some milk."

  1. [23]
    As the front-end supervisor on a Sunday she has no access to rosters for the next week and on 11 August 2013 had no cause or need to know Johns' roster for the next week.  On that day she had not received any instruction or direction from the duty manager (Fyles) to speak to Johns about her roster nor had the store manager ever issued an instruction or direction to her about rosters because they were not part of her duties.
  1. [24]
    The first time she had become aware of the allegation that she had a conversation with Johns on 11 August 2013 about her roster was about five or six weeks ago.
  1. [25]
    Under cross-examination Wilson  confirmed her previous evidence regarding no involvement in the makeup of rosters but if a question was raised there was a folder she could access if someone became unavailable for work [Transcript p. 1-43].  On her previous evidence regarding the time when she had become aware of the allegation about a discussion with Johns, the position was clarified in that about five weeks ago there was an exchange at work with Johns about her upcoming case where Johns had said words to the effect:

"She says I know what where my case will go and I says what.  She says well, it wouldn't have happened if you hadn't asked me to check my rosters.  So I just walked away, went down to the supervisor and I said to the supervisor that Sue just said something strange to me there about…" [Transcript pp. 1-43 and 1-44]

  1. [26]
    According to Wilson no one at her work had spoken to her about whether she had a conversation with Johns on 11 August 2013 and it was only when she was subpoenaed to attend the Commission that she spoke to Counsel for the Regulator [Transcript p. 1-45].  Wilson confirmed that on 11 August 2013 she had no discussion about Johns needing to check her roster [Transcript p. 1-45].  Whilst she kept no notes she remembered the events of that day due to the incident involving Johns' fall and the conversation after that being the only conversation had with her on that day [Transcript p. 1-46].  At the time of the incident Wilson was informed that a lady had fallen over but as she was on the telephone at the time she arranged a "service 50" call for a person to do first aid [Transcript p. 1-47].  Wilson repeated her earlier evidence with regards to not seeing or talking to Johns prior to her fall [Transcript p. 1-48].

Submissions

Regulator

  1. [27]
    The Regulator provided a written outline of submissions and also oral submissions following the conclusion of the evidentiary case.  A supplementary submission was provided in writing on 2 October 2015.
  1. [28]
    The onus of proof fell to the Appellant based upon the balance of probabilities (see State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-COMP and Coyne[1] and SPE Pty Ltd v Q-COMP and Fuller[2]).

Issues for Determination

  1. [29]
    The Regulator conceded that Johns:
  • was a "worker" for the purposes of the Act; and
  • had sustained an ankle injury arising from a fall on 11 August 2013.
  1. [30]
    The issue is whether the injury arose out of, or in the course of Johns' employment with Woolworths as a service team member/supervision.  Also at issue is whether Johns' employment with Woolworths was a significant contributing factor to her ankle injury.

Respondent's Contentions

  1. [31]
    The injury occurred on a day:
  • when she was not rostered to work;
  • where she performed no work on behalf of her employer;
  • received no remuneration from her employer;
  • where her reason for attending her place of employment was to undertake her own personal shopping; and
  • in circumstances where Johns' version was to be believed it was simply a personal decision to go and check her roster and she had not been encouraged or induced by the employer in any way.
  1. [32]
    There were doubts over the credibility of Johns' version as presented to the Commission given the failure to mention in her statement of 3 September 2013 of being told by Wilson to check her roster.  It appears that only after Johns failed in obtaining her public liability claim that the roster checking version appeared.  The injury could not be viewed as one arising out of or in the course of her employment.  The evidence of Wilson should be preferred in that at no time had she advised Johns to check her roster, particularly on 11 August 2013.  The requisite standard of proof had not been met.

History and Background

  1. [33]
    The submission dealt with Johns' employment particulars and of undertaking her personal shopping on 11 August 2013 when allegedly advised by Wilson to check her roster as there had been a change.  Johns had sustained the injury on re-entering the store after initially leaving to go to a Chemist.
  1. [34]
    There was a public liability claim made but not settled with a claim for compensation lodged with Woolworths' self-insurer on 3 December 2014.  The claim was rejected by the self-insurer on 12 January 2015 on the basis of it being considered that the injury was sustained whilst conducing personal business (shopping) having elected to check her roster of her own accord and not having been directed by the employer to do so.  It had been considered that her injury was not sustained in connection with her employment and her employment was not a significant contributing factor.
  1. [35]
    There was an application for review lodged with the Regulator on 12 February 2015 with the decision to reject the claim being confirmed.

Legislation

  1. [36]
    The relevant legislation was identified as s 32(1) of the Act.

Summary of Factual Evidence

  1. [37]
    The submission noted the relevant evidence of both Johns and Wilson and in doing so further noted that Johns' version about the conversation with Wilson was not consistent with a statement she had prepared and provided to Woolworths in support of her public liability claim.  In that statement (dated 3 September 2013) it was stated:

"On Sunday afternoon the 11th August 2013, at about 2.45 pm I had just completed shopping in Woolworths, Harbour Town store.  As this is the store in which I am employed and having completed my shopping, I decided to check my roster for the coming week.  I had completed this task and was on my way to exit the store, having almost passed the bakery I was very close to the entry gates when I slipped and fell to the floor."

  1. [38]
    Based on this version it was said Johns had simply made a personal decision to check her roster whilst in the store and it is this version that the Commission should accept as being the correct version with the version about the conversation with Wilson having been made as a more recent invention to bolster a claim for workers' compensation.
  1. [39]
    In the case of Wilson it was submitted she had presented as an impressive witness who gave an honest and consistent account in a direct and forthright manner.  There was no reason for Wilson to lie about not having the alleged conversation with Johns on 11 August 2013 and her evidence should be preferred to that of Johns where there was conflict.

Injury arising out of or in the course of, the employment

  1. [40]
    Johns had sustained her injury on a day when she:
  • was not required to attend her workplace;
  • was not rostered on for work;
  • was not being paid;
  • did no actual work (other than check her roster); and
  • her principle reason for attending the shopping centre was entirely personal, to conduct her shopping.
  1. [41]
    This matter falls within the "interval" line of authorities, that being an injury occurring in an interval between actual periods of work.  The case law dealing with this area had recently been considered by Martin P in the Industrial Court.  The test to be applied was the subject of recent consideration in the High Court in the decision of Comcare v PVYW[3] (PVYW).
  1. [42]
    In the matter of Campbell v Australian Leisure & Hospitality Group Pty Ltd & Anor[4] Martin P identified the following relevant principles from the High Court decision in PVYW as follows:

"[9] The concepts contained within the Act relating to whether or not an injury arises out of or in the course of employment and whether or not employment is a significant contributing factor have been considered in a number of cases which deal with those concepts contained in similar but not identical legislation.  The manner in which an injury which occurs during an interval which itself occurs within an overall period of work was considered in Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Limited.  That decision was comprehensively examined in Comcare v PVYW.

[10] For the purposes of this appeal the following principles enunciated in PVYW are relevant:

  1. (a)
    For an injury to be in the course of employment, the employee must be doing the very thing that the employer encouraged the employee to do, when the injury occurs.
  1. (b)
    Where the circumstances of the injury involve the employee engaging in an activity, the question will be whether the employer induced or encouraged the employee to do so.
  1. (c)
    Where an activity was engaged in at the time of the injury, the relevant question is not whether the employer induced or encouraged the employee to be at a place.
  1. (d)
    An employer is not liable for an injury which occurs when an employee undertakes a particular activity, if the employer has not in any way encouraged the employee to undertake that activity, but has merely required the employee to be present at the place where the activity is undertaken.
  1. (e)
    There is no justification for taking a 'wide view' of an employer's liability in circumstances where the employer could be seen to have encouraged the employee to be at a particular place."
  1. [43]
    Other authorities cited by the Regulator included:
  • Oaks Hotels and Resorts (Qld) v Blackwood and Anor[5];
  • Comcare v Mather[6];
  • Huhu v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[7];
  • Eagle v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[8];
  • Balderson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[9]; and
  • Wilson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[10].

Employment being a significant contributing factor

  1. [44]
    Authorities cited regarding this criteria included:
  • Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd[11]; and
  • Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland[12].

Discussion

  1. [45]
    In light of the authorities cited Johns cannot, it was submitted establish that her injury arose out of her employment nor can she establish that the injury had occurred in the course of employment.
  1. [46]
    The documentary evidence showed Johns worked two different timetables from Week 1 to Week 2 and agreed to this arrangement by signing off on the "Queensland Employees Rostering Arrangement" on 25 March 2013.  The only change to the roster was for Tuesday 13 August 2013 with this change having been included on her roster for the previous week.
  1. [47]
    Even if Johns' evidence was to be accepted that the fall occurred as a result of a check on her roster, there had been no direction, inducement or encouragement from the employer to make the check.  Further if it was accepted that Wilson had the conversation with Johns as alleged there had never been an instruction or direction to Wilson by management on this matter.
  1. [48]
    Finally, it was submitted the Appeal should be dismissed and the decision of the Review Unit (dated 9 June 2015) should be confirmed.
  1. [49]
    The Regulator sought costs of defending the Appeal.
  1. [50]
    The oral submission canvassed the material contained in the written outline of submissions in addition to highlighting a number of points that included:
  • what possible reason would Wilson have had to go off and investigate Johns' roster for the next week;
  • Wilson a long-term employee and union representative had no possible reason to give a false version about what occurred on 11 August 2013; and
  • there was no reason for Johns not to have mentioned the alleged conversation in the first statement (dated 3 September 2013).

Appellant

  1. [51]
    The Appellant provided a written outline of submissions and addressed the Commission at the conclusion of the evidentiary case.
  1. [52]
    The Appeal is against a decision of the Review Unit (dated 9 June 2015) that had reaffirmed the decision of the Regulator to reject an application by Johns for compensation on the basis that the application had not satisfied the provisions of s 32 of the Act.
  1. [53]
    It was common ground that Johns was at all material times a worker as defined within s 11 of the Act and she had been employed on a permanent part-time basis with her hours subject to a roster.
  1. [54]
    The case advanced by Johns was that on Sunday 11 August 2013 at approximately 2.45 pm, whilst not rostered for work and shopping at her place of employment.  As she was in the process of completing the checkout task she had been directed by the counter supervisor Wilson to check her roster as the rosters had changed for the following week.  Johns had responded by informing Wilson that she would return to the store and check her roster after she had been to the chemist which was located within the shopping complex.  Johns as promised and went to the area where the roster information was kept and upon checking the roster, noticed her roster had changed.
  1. [55]
    The relevant roster relevant roster revealed her rostered hours had changed to reveal that:
  • "The week preceding her fall on the Sunday 11 August 2013, saw the appellant rostered on as working Monday from 11.30 am to 4.30 pm and 5.30 pm to 9.30 pm (a total of 9 hours); Tuesday 12.30 pm to 5.30 pm; Wednesday 1 pm to 6 pm and Thursday 4.30 pm to 9.30 pm (her normal roster);
  • The appellant was not rostered on for work (in her normal) Friday, Saturday or Sunday;
  • The following week the appellant's roster had changed to see her only working on the Monday from 5 pm in the afternoon to 9.30 pm;
  • The Wednesday had changed to the extent she was not rostered on to work;
  • The Thursday had not changed, however the Saturday had changed to see her rostered on from 7.30 am to 4.30 pm."
  1. [56]
    The importance of this evidence is that if Johns had not checked her roster she would have turned up for work in accordance with her previous roster when she had not been required to attend on the Monday morning.  This evidence was consistent with Johns' testimony and demonstrably clearly against the evidence of Wilson.
  1. [57]
    Having checked her roster Johns, as she was exiting the store, slipped and fell onto the floor.  Johns is said to have (at an undisclosed time) written to Woolworths in the following terms:

"While waiting in the checkout que [sic] I spoke to Pat Wilson (the Acting Supervisor and Union Rep).  Pat informed me that there had been some changes to the roster and suggested that I take the opportunity to check the roster.  As I had already progressed in the que [sic] I decided that I would complete my purchases and then go to the Chemist to collect items of medication from a prescription I had taken to them prior to doing my shopping.  After collecting the medication I returned to Woolworths (I had to pass the store on my way back to my car) to check my roster for the coming week.  I had completed this task and was on my way to exit the store having almost passed the backer.  I was very close to the entry gates when I slipped and fell on the floor"

The independent evidence of the roster change supported the evidence given by Johns.

  1. [58]
    A number of authorities were cited in support of the Appeal that included:
  • Oaks Hotels and Resorts (Qld) v Blackwood and Anor[13]; and
  • PVYW where Martin P referred to Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd[14] where Keane JA had said:

"I should also observe in passing that the fact that an injury has been suffered arising out of employment, or in the course of employment, is not sufficient to establish that the employment has been 'a significant contributing factor to the injury'.  To read s 32 of the WCRA in that way would be to read the latter words out of the section, and in my respectful opinion to accord scant respect to the evident intention of the legislature to require a more substantial connection between employment and injury than is required by the phrases 'arising out of employment' or 'in the course of employment'."

  1. [59]
    Martin P had also considered the matter of Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Limited[15] (Hatzimanolis) in PVYW making the following comment:

"The starting point in applying what was said in Hatzimanolis, in order to determine whether an injury was suffered in the course of employment, is the factual finding that an employee suffered injury, but not whilst engaged in actual work.  The next enquiry is what the employee was doing when injured. For the principle in Hatzimanolis to apply, the employee must have been either engaged in an activity or present at a place when the injury occurred.  The essential enquiry is then: how was the injury brought about?  In some cases, the injury will have occurred at and by reference to the place.  More commonly, it will have occurred while the employee was engaged in an activity.  It is only if and when one of those circumstances is present that the question arising from the Hatzimanolis principle becomes relevant.  When an activity was engaged in at the time of injury, the question is: did the employer induce or encourage the employee to engage in that activity?  When injury occurs at and by reference to a place, the question is: did the employer induce or encourage the employee to be there?  If the answer to the relevant question is affirmative, then the injury will have occurred in the course of employment." [underlining added by Appellant]

  1. [60]
    The Commission was required to consider the following two aspects:
  • "The fact that the roster was rostered and was available for inspection by staff at all times (even when staff were not rostered on);
  • The evidence of the inspection (which is not challenged) is consistent with the supervisor alerting the appellant to go and inspect as she would otherwise not have known of her change in hours."
  1. [61]
    In the matter of Q-COMP v Kennerley and Qantas Airways Limited[16] Hall P stated:

"…it was the nature and terms of his employment together with decisions and initiatives of Qantas, which caused Mr Kennerley to be riding his motorbike where and when he was injured."

  1. [62]
    In the case of Johns had she not have been reinvited to attend and inspect the roster then simply she would not have returned to the store and suffered the injury.  It is a case of reference to a place and also a reference to engaging in a specific activity.
  1. [63]
    In citing the further authorities of Campbell v Australian Leisure & Hospitality Group Pty Ltd & Anor[17] and Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland[18] it was submitted that a causal link had been satisfied by the necessity for Johns to return at the direction of the supervisor.
  1. [64]
    In oral submissions there was a further reference regarding the acceptance of Johns' evidence over that of Wilson however even if that evidence was not accepted the Commission could in an industrial context accept that there was a requirement for staff to attempt to look at that particular notice.
  1. [65]
    In applying what was stated in Hatzimanolis to this Appeal it was the case that Johns was present and engaged in an activity by way of an inspection of her roster but even if one of the Hatzimanolis principles that is sufficient.
  1. [66]
    There was acceptance that the relevant authorities presented to the Commission pointed to a factual scenario that is extant in this particular case and the factual scenario being simply that Johns was at the place of employment when the injury occurred.
  1. [67]
    Johns had suffered an injury in the course of her employment which put her in a position where the personal injury arose out of her employment and employment was a significant contributing factor.

Regulator's Submission in Reply

  1. [68]
    In terms of the reliance by Counsel for Johns on the observations of Martin P in Oaks Hotels and Resorts (Qld) v Blackwood and Anor[19] it was submitted that it was not an activity case and she had suffered her injury by virtue of some feature of the place, that being a lettuce leaf on the floor of the supermarket as she was exiting the store.  On 11 August 2013 there was no overt or covert or inducement or encouragement by the employer for her to be at the place.
  1. [69]
    The case for Johns fails because it is a place case and not an activity case.

Supplementary Submissions

Regulator

  1. [70]
    The supplementary submissions addressed a recent Federal Court decision of O'Loughlin v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd[20] where Bromberg J had made the following comment:

"31. As is apparent, the order of relevant inquiry is here set out.  The 'starting point' is a factual finding that the injury was suffered by the employee 'not whilst engaged in actual work'.  The PVYW question is only a relevant inquiry if all anterior inquiries are first satisfied. In the absence of a finding that the injury was sustained during an Interval, the PVYW question does not arise.

 …

  1. It follows that I do not accept that PVYW contains any statement of a new organizing principle.  I do not accept that 'not whilst engaged in actual work' in the first sentence of [38] in PVYW is to be read as meaning 'not whilst engaged in ordinary duties or something incidental thereto.'  Rather, as I have said, I consider that the phrase was another way of saying, 'in an interval in an overall period of work.'  I do not accept that the 'induce or encourage' formulation in the last sentence of [38] in PVYW establishes a second stage or a third category.  Rather, I consider that (as in Hatzimanolis) it describes when an injury sustained in an interval in an overall period of work will be one sustained in the course of employment. I consider that the 'organizing principle' remains as set out in Hatzimanolis (as clarified in PVYW)."
  1. [71]
    The decision of Bromberg J had held for the principles from PVYW to apply there must be an overall period of work and the injury must occur during an interval in that overall period of work.  That is that the principle applies in a camp type case scenario and does not apply where an injury occurs in an interval during discrete periods of work and in effect was on a lengthy break between discrete periods of work.  If the judgement of Bromberg J is accepted then the principles of PVYW will have no application to the present case.
  1. [72]
    On the basis of the Commission finding that PVYW principles has no application to the present case, the question is whether Johns' injury could be seen to occur in the course of employment with dependence upon the application of older authorities.
  1. [73]
    In Kavanagh v the Commonwealth[21] Fullagar J described the test in the following terms:

"…while the worker is engaged in work which he is employed to do or in something incidental to that work."

  1. [74]
    In Whittingham v the Commissioner of Railways (WA)[22] Dixon J said that in order to be in the course of employment the accident must happen "while an employee is doing something which is part or incidental to his service".  Dixon J went on to observe that incidental to a worker's work depends upon the sufficiency of the connection between the employment and the thing done by the employee which is a matter of degree, in which time, place and circumstance, as well as practice must be considered together with the conditions of employment.
  1. [75]
    In Hatzimanolis the majority stated that an injury is:

"…more readily seen as occurring in the course of employment when it has been sustained in an interval or interlude occurring within an overall period of work than when it has been sustained in the interval between two periods of work".

Appellant

  1. [76]
    Supplementary submissions on behalf of Johns challenged similar submissions of the Regulator arguing they were fundamentally flawed being that the Regulator did not understand the case advanced by Johns.
  1. [77]
    The case was that by virtue of the Woolworths National Supermarket Agreement of 2012 Johns as a part-time employee was required to inspect her work roster at a location where the roster was posted in the workplace.  Johns would not have attended to inspect the roster had it not effectively been for Wilson having advised of an alteration to the roster.  In fact Johns had a regular shift and the advice of an alteration was the reason she needed to inspect the roster.
  1. [78]
    Irrespective of whose evidence the Commission believed it has always been the case that Johns had the opportunity and the obligation to inspect the roster, simply because it was posted for the purpose of her inspection and after she had inspected the roster she had sought to remove herself form the workplace at which time she suffered an injury on the premises.
  1. [79]
    The matter of O'Loughlin v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd[23] (O'Loughlin) was cited and quoted in the following terms:

"As stated in Hatzimanolis, 'the course of employment' covered not only actual work but also the natural incidents connected with the class of work."

  1. [80]
    The Regulator, it was submitted, could not overcome the hurdle of Johns' having an entitlement to undertake an inspection of her roster with each of the cases relied upon by the Regulator being entirely distinguishable from this particular case.  In this case the principles laid down in the High Court in both Hatzimanolis and PVYW place Johns in a position where she was impliedly or expressly required to attend or at least attend upon the workplace for the purpose of carrying out her work duties.
  1. [81]
    As stated in Hatzimanolis and referred to by the High Court in PVYW:

"It is important to identify how Hatzimanolis sought to define the circumstances for, and the extent of, an employer's liability for compensation. Hatzimanolis sought to provide a legal justification for an injury, which occurred between periods of actual work, being regarded as occurring in the course of the employee's employment.  It did so by characterising the interval by reference to the employer's inducement or encouragement.  The employer's liability in such circumstances depends upon what the employer induced or encouraged the employee to do. Hatzimanolis did not seek to extend the employer's liability beyond that."

  1. [82]
    Further in O'Loughlin it was stated:

"An important passage in the majority’s reasoning is at [38].  That is where what I have called the PVYW question was posed, and the manner in which the Hatzimanolis principle is to be applied was explained.  Under the heading 'Applying the Hatzimanolis principle', the majority said:

The starting point in applying what was said in Hatzimanolis, in order to determine whether an injury was suffered in the course of employment, is the factual finding that an employee suffered injury, but not whilst engaged in actual work.  The next inquiry is what the employee was doing when injured.  For the principle in Hatzimanolis to apply, the employee must have been either engaged in an activity or present at a place when the injury occurred.  The essential inquiry is then:  how was the injury brought about?  In some cases, the injury will have occurred at and by reference to the place.  More commonly, it will have occurred while the employee was engaged in an activity.  It is only if and when one of those circumstances is present that the question arising from the Hatzimanolis principle becomes relevant.  When an activity was engaged in at the time of injury, the question is:  did the employer induce or encourage the employee to engage in that activity?  When injury occurs at and by reference to a place, the question is:  did the employer induce or encourage the employee to be there?  If the answer to the relevant question is affirmative, then the injury will have occurred in the course of employment."

  1. [83]
    Johns' injury had occurred in the course of employment and if it was not for her employment she would not have been on the premises.  The aspects of the case were similarly considered by a Full Bench of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Steward v Repatriation Commission[24].  The law supports a finding in favour of Johns.

Conclusion

  1. [84]
    The issue to be determined by the Commission is of narrow focus being whether Johns had suffered an injury that had arisen out of or in the course of her employment as a service cashier at Woolworths and if that was resolved in the positive whether her employment had been a significant contributing factor to her injury.
  1. [85]
    The Regulator had in the course of the proceedings conceded Johns was:
  • a worker pursuant to s 11 of the Act; and
  • had sustained an ankle injury as a result of a fall at the Harbour Town Woolworths Store on 11 August 2013.
  1. [86]
    The witness evidence in the proceedings was limited to two witnesses being Johns as the Appellant and Wilson who gave evidence on behalf of the Regulator.  On issues of significant importance in the overall context of the Appeal it is safe to conclude that their evidence was diametrically opposed with the fate of the Appeal to some extent residing in which of the witness's evidence was preferred by the Commission.
  1. [87]
    Johns' evidence was that on 11 August 2013 she had attended the Harbour Town Store of Woolworths (her usual place of work) for purposes that were entirely personal and not related to her employment.  Prior to her attendance at the store on that particular day the last shift of paid employment at the store by Johns had been on Thursday 8 August 2013.  Whilst waiting to proceed through the express checkout lane at around 2.30 pm, Wilson the service supervisor, at the time, was said to have spoken to Johns regarding changes to the roster for the coming week and as a result of the conversation with Wilson she later re-entered the store to check her roster.
  1. [88]
    After inspecting the roster which was in an area where there was no public access Johns' evidence described how she had shortly thereafter slipped on a "piece of greenery" which led to her falling to the floor causing an injury to her ankle as she was exiting the store.  Johns' claimed that the roster viewed by her had recorded an earlier start than usual on Monday 12 August 2013 which was not consistent with a roster document [Exhibit 2] tendered in the proceeding which identified her rostered hours for that day "17.00 - 21.30".  Johns had disputed the authenticity of Exhibit 2 however had not presented a copy of the roster said to have recorded an earlier commencement for her employment on that day.
  1. [89]
    Wilson a long-term employee of Woolworths was also one of two SDA union representatives in the store, gave evidence of having worked on 11 August 2013 at the Harbour Town Store in the role of supervisor but strenuously denied having spoken to Johns on that day prior to her fall and at no time had there been a discussion with Johns regarding any roster issue.  There was according to Wilson a conversation with Johns at a time shortly after her fall where her evidence described the nature of that conversation as:

"The nature of that conversation was as I was walking up to express and she was coming out.  I asked her was she okay, and she said that it's a bit sore, and I did say to her well, what were you doing here?  And she says Jeff had no milk for his coffee, so I had to come across to get some milk."

  1. [90]
    Wilson had as part of her role no responsibility or involvement in the roster process and on 11 August 2013 there had been no instruction given to her by the duty manager (at the time) to speak to Johns about rosters.
  1. [91]
    The Commission beyond the direct evidence in the proceedings also had documentary evidence that was available for consideration.  On 3 September 2013 Johns had written to Woolworths Australia Ltd - Public Liability Department regarding the incident of 11 August 2013 and had provided the following information regarding the incident:

"On Sunday afternoon the 11th August 2013, at about 2.45 pm I had just completed shopping in Woolworths, Harbour Town store. 

As this is the store in which I am employed and having completed my shopping, I decided to check my roster for the coming week.  I had completed this task and was on my way to exit the store, having almost passed the bakery I was very close to the entry gates when I slipped and fell to the floor."

  1. [92]
    In the same correspondence Johns went on to state:

"Since the incident, I have been unable to work and have had to use my holiday leave.  I am asking that this be reimbursed and that I have my loss of pay covered for the time I am unable to work.

I have also attached scanned details of my last five pays.

I would also like to be covered for any medical expenses should I incur them.

I also wish to state that if my treating physician approves me for light duties or restricted work, prior to a complete clearance, I am anxious to be allowed the opportunity to perform these duties, should this recommendation be made."

  1. [93]
    Johns generated further correspondence in this case to Employers Mutual - Acting for Woolworths Australia Ltd (the Insurer)(dated 12 November 2014) which was a statement relating to the incident of some 15 months previous.  In this correspondence she provided a somewhat different account of the events:

"On Sunday afternoon the 11th August 2013, at about 2.45pm I had just completed shopping in Woolworths, Harbour town store.

As this is the store in which I am employed and having completed my shopping, I headed to the checkouts.

While waiting in the checkout 'queue' I spoke to Pat Wilson (the acting supervisor and union rep).  Pat informed me that there had been some changes to the roster and suggested that I take the opportunity to check my roster.

As I had already progressed in the queue I decided that I would complete my purchases and then go to the chemist to collect items of medication from a prescription I had taken to them prior to doing my shopping.

After collecting the medication I returned to Woolworths (I had to pass the store on my way back to my car) to check my roster for the coming week.  I had completed this task and was on my way to exit the store, having almost passed the bakery I was very close to the entry gates when I slipped and fell to the floor."

  1. [94]
    Also in this correspondence there was mention of having initially made a public liability claim and of having rejected an offer of $5,000 as full settlement for the claim.  There was also a reference to Wilson's advice to check her roster being well founded as she had found her roster had been altered.
  1. [95]
    On examination of the previously mentioned documentation it is evident that the more contemporaneous correspondence to the incident of 11 August 2013 not only omits the alleged conversation with Wilson but more importantly takes clear ownership of the decision to check the roster in the following terms:

"I decided to check my roster for the coming week."

The documentation some 15 months beyond the incident, reports the interaction with Wilson and also the fact of a change to her roster.

  1. [96]
    The documentation presents some difficulty regarding the acceptance of Johns' evidence in the proceedings as at a time of close proximity to the 11 August 2013 incident the important issue of Wilson having directed her to undertake a roster check is absent as is also any evidence to support the claim of a change to the roster.  The evidence of Wilson would on the face be consistent with the initial position of Johns in that there was no conversation about a roster change or a suggestion or direction for Johns to check her roster.
  1. [97]
    I have the strong preference for accepting the evidence of Wilson as being a more honest and reliable account than that of Johns and therefore it has not been established by Johns as to the requisite standard of proof that her presence in the Harbour Town store of Woolworths on 13 August 2013 was as a result of having followed a direction by Wilson to check her roster for the coming week.  The failure by Johns to provide acceptable evidence that challenged the authenticity of the roster information for the week commencing 12 August 2013 [Exhibit 2] further compounds the acceptance of Johns' position regarding the events of 11 August 2013.
  1. [98]
    On the matter of Johns' being present in the store on 11 August 2013 (putting to one side the alleged conversation with Wilson) to check her roster, it was her evidence in the proceedings that having completed her personal shopping she left the store to visit a Chemist and it was on her return visit to the store for the sole purpose of checking her roster that the incident causing injury had occurred.  In the correspondence generated by Johns on 3 September 2013 she omits any reference to having left the store and returning to check her roster, in fact stated:

"On Sunday afternoon the 11th August 2013, at about 2.45 pm I had just completed shopping in Woolworths, Harbour Town store. 

As this is the store in which I am employed and having completed my shopping, I decided to check my roster for the coming week."

  1. [99]
    The inconsistencies in Johns' recount of her actions on 11 August 2013 brings into question the claim by her that the purpose of her "second" visit to the store was solely for the purpose of a roster check and also whether there was in fact a "second" visit as such.
  1. [100]
    In those circumstances it is not open to the Commission to make a factual finding that Johns suffered an injury in the course of her employment or whilst undertaking an activity associated with her employment.  The varying accounts from both the evidence of Johns in the proceedings and the documentation generated by Johns on 3 September 2013 and to a lessor extent 12 November 2014 would make such a finding unsafe.
  1. [101]
    I also accept the submission advanced by the Regulator in terms of Johns' injury not arising out of or in the course of her employment as listed below and borne out by the evidence in the proceedings:
  • was not required to attend her workplace;
  • was not rostered on for work;
  • was not being paid;
  • did no actual work (other than check her roster); and
  • her principle reason for attending the shopping centre was entirely personal, to conduct her shopping.
  1. [102]
    In the matter of Huhu v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[25] Martin P dealt with an injury that occurred in an interval and made the following comments:

"The manner in which an injury which occurs during an interval which itself occurs within an overall period of work was considered in Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Limited.  That decision was comprehensively examined in Comcare v PVYW.

[10] For the purposes of this appeal the following principles enunciated in PVYW are relevant:

  1. (a)
    For an injury to be in the course of employment, the employee must be doing the very thing that the employer encouraged the employee to do, when the injury occurs.
  1. (b)
    Where the circumstances of the injury involve the employee engaging in an activity, the question will be whether the employer induced or encouraged the employee to do so.
  1. (c)
    Where an activity was engaged in at the time of the injury, the relevant question is not whether the employer induced or encouraged the employee to be at a place.
  1. (d)
    An employer is not liable for an injury which occurs when an employee undertakes a particular activity, if the employer has not in any way encouraged the employee to undertake that activity, but has merely required the employee to be present at the place where the activity is undertaken.
  1. (e)
    There is no justification for taking a 'wide view' of an employer's liability in circumstances where the employer could be seen to have encouraged the employee to be at a particular place."
  1. [103]
    In the case of Johns there was no evidence of inducement or encouragement by the employer to have engaged in the activity of visiting her place of work to conduct a check of the roster on 11 August 2013 and the injury that occurred whilst at her place of work happened in a public area of a supermarket utilised by the public in undertaking the activity of personal shopping which on the evidence was the activity indulged in by Johns on 11 August 2013.

Finding

  1. [104]
    Having considered the evidence, material and submissions before the proceedings I make the following findings:
  • at the relevant time (11 August 2013) Johns was, pursuant to s 11 of the Act, a worker;
  • on 11 August 2013 Johns, whilst in Woolworths Harbour Town store slipped and fell causing a personal injury to the right fibula; and
  • pursuant to s 32 of the Act the injury suffered by Johns did not arise out of, or in the course of her employment and consequently the personal injury suffered was not as a result of her employment being a significant contributing factor to the injury.
  1. [105]
    The Appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Review Unit (dated 9 June 2015) is upheld with the application by Johns for workers' compensation being one for rejection.
  1. [106]
    Johns is to pay the Regulator's costs of and incidental to this Appeal to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.
  1. [107]
    I order accordingly.

Footnotes

[1] State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-COMP and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447

[2] SPE Pty Ltd v Q-COMP and Gary Clifford Fuller (C/2010/19) - Decision -

[3] Comcare v PVYW (2013) 250 CLR 246

[4] Campbell v Australian Leisure & Hospitality Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2015] ICQ 016

[5] Oaks Hotels and Resorts (Qld) v Blackwood and Anor [2014] ICQ 023

[6] Comcare v Mather (1995) 37 ALD 493

[7] Huhu v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 021

[8] Eagle v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator [2014] QIRC 020

[9] Balderson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 051

[10] Wilson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 097

[11] Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] QCA 48

[12] Peter James Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100

[13] Oaks Hotels and Resorts (Qld) v Blackwood and Anor [2014] ICQ 023

[14] Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] QCA 48

[15] Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Limited [1992] HCA 21

[16] Q-COMP AND John Kennerley and Qantas Airways Limited (C/2012/16) John Kennerley AND Q-COMP and Qantas Airways Limited (C/2012/18) - Decision

[17] Campbell v Australian Leisure & Hospitality Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2015] ICQ 016

[18] Peter James Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100

[19] Oaks Hotels and Resorts (Qld) v Blackwood and Anor [2014] ICQ 023

[20] O'Loughlin v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1000

[21] Kavanagh v the Commonwealth [1960] HCA 25

[22] Whittingham v the Commissioner of Railways (WA) [1931] HCA 49

[23] O'Loughlin v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (2015) FCA 1000

[24] Stewart v Repatriation Commission [1998] AATA 850

[25] Huhu v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 021

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Johns v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Johns v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

  • MNC:

    [2015] QIRC 175

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Member Thompson IC

  • Date:

    12 Oct 2015

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
Balderson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 51
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QIRC 51
Cite 2 - [2014] QIRC 51
Campbell v Australian Leisure & Hospitality Group Pty Ltd [2015] ICQ 16
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] ICQ 16
Cite 2 - [2015] ICQ 16
Cite 3 - [2015] ICQ 16
Comcare v Mather (1995) 37 ALD 493
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1995) 37 ALD 493
Cite 2 - (1995) 37 ALD 493
Comcare v PVYW (2013) 250 CLR 246
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2013) 250 CLR 246
Cite 2 - (2013) 250 CLR 246
Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1997) 156 QGIG 100
Cite 2 - (1997) 156 QGIG 100
Cite 3 - (1997) 156 QGIG 100
Hatzimanolis v ANI Ltd [1992] HCA 21
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1992] HCA 21
Cite 2 - [1992] HCA 21
Huhu v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] ICQ 21
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] ICQ 21
Cite 2 - [2015] ICQ 21
Cite 3 - [2015] ICQ 21
Kavanagh v The Commonwealth [1960] HCA 25
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1960] HCA 25
Cite 2 - [1960] HCA 25
Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd[2006] 1 Qd R 519; [2006] QCA 48
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] QCA 48
Cite 2 - [2006] QCA 48
Cite 3 - [2006] QCA 48
O'Loughlin v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (2015) FCA 1000
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2015) FCA 1000
Cite 2 - (2015) FCA 1000
Cite 3 - (2015) FCA 1000
Cite 4 - (2015) FCA 1000
Oaks Hotels and Resorts (Qld) Pty Ltd v Blackwood and Anor [2014] ICQ 23
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] ICQ 23
Cite 2 - [2014] ICQ 23
Cite 3 - [2014] ICQ 23
Cite 4 - [2014] ICQ 23
Ronald Eagle v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 20
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QIRC 20
Cite 2 - [2014] QIRC 20
State of Queensland v Q-COMP and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) 172 QGIG 1447
Cite 2 - (2003) 172 QGIG 1447
Stewart v Repatriation Commission [1998] AATA 850
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1998] AATA 850
Cite 2 - [1998] AATA 850
Whittingham v the Commissioner of Railways (WA) [1931] HCA 49
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1931] HCA 49
Cite 2 - [1931] HCA 49
Wilson v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 97
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QIRC 97
Cite 2 - [2014] QIRC 97

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.