Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2017
  4. Jibson v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2017] QIRC 75

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

Jibson v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2017] QIRC 75

Jibson v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2017] QIRC 75

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Gary Jibson v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 075  

PARTIES: 

Gary Jibson

(appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator

(respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2014/206

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2017

HEARING DATE:

28 February 2017

HEARD AT:

MEMBER:

Gatton Magistrates Court

The Hon. L Kaufman

Deputy President

ORDERS :

  1.  Appeal allowed
  2. Decision of the Regulator dated 4 June 2014 set aside
  3. The matter is to be referred back to the regulator with a direction that it be remitted to WorkCover Queensland to determine the issue of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003
  4. Respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal in a sum to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION – where notice of appeal lodged by the spouse of the deceased – alleged misrepresentation on application for membership form – whether the deceased was a member of a rural fire brigade for the purposes of s 14(3) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 –

CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

Industrial Relations Act 2016

Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990

Brisbane City Council v Gillow & Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) [2016] ICQ 007

Re Tanner; Re Armstrong; Re Inquiry into Election in Federated Clerks Union of Australia (1986) 16 IR 210

Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 010

Wenzel and Another v Australian Stock Exchange (2002) 125 FCR 570

APPEARANCES:

P. B. Rashleigh of counsel, instructed by Patinos Lawyers of the appellant.

S. P. Gray of counsel, directly instructed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator, the respondent.

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    On 20 December 2013 the appellant, Mr Gary Jibson (also known as Danny McGuire), lodged an application for compensation with WorkCover Queensland, claiming workers’ compensation benefits arising from the death of his wife, Miss Llync-Chiann Clarke, on 10 January 2011 during the Grantham flood event.  Although I was not addressed as to Mr Jibson's standing to make the application for compensation, given that the regulator did not contend that he had no standing, I act on the assumption that he was entitled to seek compensation under s 196 of Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCR Act). I note that in the appellant’s statement of facts and contentions it is said that the appellant and his son are dependants for the purposes of the WCR Act. However, there was no evidence led to suggest that Mr Jibson was a dependant of the deceased.[1]
  2. [2]
    The application was made on the basis that Miss Clarke was a member of the Grantham Rural Fire Brigade and therefore a rural fire brigade member in accordance with the provisions of the WCR Act and that her death resulted from an injury sustained while she was performing duties as a member of the brigade.
  3. [3]
    By its decision dated 23 January 2014, WorkCover determined not to accept Mr Jibson's application for compensation.
  4. [4]
    An application for review of that decision was unsuccessful with the regulator, on 4 June 2014, confirming the decision to reject the application on the basis that Miss Clarke was not a rural fire brigade member.  As part of Mr Jibson's application to WorkCover, Mr Jibson asserted that his late wife had been performing duties as a member of a rural fire brigade at the time of her death.
  5. [5]
    As the regulator did not consider the issue of whether Miss Clarke had been performing duties at the time of her death, it is agreed between the parties that the sole issue for determination in this appeal is whether Miss Clarke was a member of a rural fire brigade, specifically, a member of the Grantham Brigade at the time of her death.

Legislation

The WCR Act

Division 3  Persons entitled to compensation other than workers

Subdivision 1  Volunteers etc.

12 Entitlements of persons mentioned in div 1

  1. (1)
    A person mentioned in this subdivision who is covered under a contract of insurance entered into with WorkCover for this subdivision has, subject to this subdivision—
  1. (a)
    an entitlement to weekly payments of compensation under chapter 3, part 9, division 4, subdivision 3 and division 5, subdivision 1; and
  1. (b)
    for all other entitlements—the same entitlements to compensation as a worker.

…

  1. (3)
    For the purpose of the contract, in the application of the definition injury to the person—
  1. (a)
    the activity covered by the contract is taken to be the person’s employment; and
  1. (b)
    the party with whom WorkCover enters the contract is taken to be the person’s employer.

…

14  Rural fire brigade member

  1. (1)
    WorkCover may enter into a contract of insurance for this subdivision with the authority responsible for management of a rural fire brigade under the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990.
  1. (2)
    The contract may cover a member of the rural fire brigade.
  1. (3)
    A person covered by the contract is entitled to compensation for injury sustained only while performing duties, including being trained, as a member of the rural fire brigade.

…

196  To whom payments made for death of worker

  1. (1)
    Compensation for the death of a worker is payable –

(a) To the worker’s legal personal representative; or

  1. (2)
    …
  1. [6]
    Rural fire brigades are established under the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 (FRS Act).

The FRS Act

Division 3—Rural fire brigades

79 Formation of rural fire brigade

  1. (1)
    Any group of persons may apply to the commissioner for registration as a rural fire brigade.
  2. (2)
    The commissioner may grant or refuse an application and, in the case of the granting of an application, must assign a registration number to the rural fire brigade.
  3. (3)
    The commissioner may at any time cancel the registration of a rural fire brigade.

80 Rural fire brigade may make rules

  1. (1)
    A rural fire brigade may make rules, not inconsistent with this Act, for the purpose of regulating its proceedings and the conduct of its operations including the acquisition, vesting and disposal of its property and funds.
  2. (2)
    A rule has no effect unless approved by the commissioner.
  3. (3)
    The commissioner may at any time direct a rural fire brigade to amend, revoke or make rules in the manner and for the purpose specified in the direction.

81 Officers of rural fire brigade

  1. (1)
    A rural fire brigade must elect a first officer to be in charge of the brigade.
  2. (2)
    A rural fire brigade may also elect such other officers as it considers necessary.

…

82 Functions of a rural fire brigade

  1. (1)
    The functions of a rural fire brigade are fire fighting and fire prevention and such other functions as the commissioner may direct.
  2. (2)
    The commissioner must notify a rural fire brigade of the area for which and the circumstances in which the brigade is in charge of fire fighting and fire prevention.
  3. (3)
    In this section—“fire prevention” includes taking measures in readiness for fire so as to reduce potential danger to persons, property or the environment.
83 Powers of first officer

 

  1. (1)
    Where, pursuant to notification given under section 82(2), a rural fire brigade is in charge of operations for controlling and extinguishing a fire, the first officer of the brigade has, for that purpose—

(a) the powers of an authorised fire officer, subject to any limitation imposed by the commissioner; and

(b) the control and direction of any person (including any fire officer) whose services are available at the fire.

…

84 Equipment for rural fire brigade

  1. (1)
    The chief executive may provide any rural fire brigade with equipment for carrying out its responsibilities or may, for that purpose, subsidise the purchase of equipment by a rural fire brigade.

…

  1. (5)
    In this section—“equipment”, without limiting the meaning of the term, includes plant and any liquid or gaseous substance.

85 Chief executive’s role relating to rural fire brigades

The chief executive is responsible for the efficiency of rural fire brigades and may provide training and other assistance to them.

The factual context

  1. [7]
    The Grantham Rural Fire Brigade appears to have been registered under s 79(1) of the FRS Act.  Exhibit A3, "Brigade Constitution" comprises rules made pursuant to s 80 of that Act.
  2. [8]
    Rule 16 deals with membership of the brigade and provides for three classes of member: Firefighter; Support; and Community member.
  3. [9]
    Rule 16 relevantly provides:

"16. Membership

The membership of the brigade shall consist of three classes of member: Firefighter, Support and Community Member.

A member must be at least 16 years of age and, in the opinion of the management committee, a fit and proper person.

(a) An (sic)Firefighter member is one who:

(i) is physically fit and engages in fire prevention and fire-fighting activities, as is deemed appropriate by the brigade. Firefighter members may additionally perform any of the other roles described.

(ii) Fire-fighting activities are: fire-fighting, any activity which involves attendance at a fire or fire training, attendance at a fire front or fire ground, field radio operation and first aid.

Fire-fighting activities need competencies that are kept current by practice and training, and full use of issued PPE.

…

(d) Every applicant for membership shall be proposed by one member of the brigade and seconded by another followed by a vote to accept or reject the application. The application for membership shall be made using the official membership application form (see Brigade Manual Section C4 – Application for Membership).

(e) Any applicant who receives a majority of the votes of the persons present at the management committee meeting or general meeting at which such application is being considered shall be accepted as a member to the class of membership applied for.

(g) There shall be no compulsory fee as a condition of membership. A person’s membership commences on the date of the meeting at which his/her membership is accepted.

…"

  1. [10]
    It is common ground that there was a relevant contract of insurance taken out under s 14 of the WCR Act and that Miss Clarke was covered by it in the event that at the time of her death she was a rural fire brigade member and was performing duties as such. 
  2. [11]
    A document titled "Queensland Fire and Rescue Service Rural Fire Brigade Manual"[2] was tendered by Mr Rashleigh who appeared for the appellant.  Section C 1.2 deals with applications for membership.  Under the heading "Applying for Membership" it is provided:

"C1.2 Application for Membership      Brigade

Purpose

This section provides information on the process required for an individual to become a member of a Rural Fire Brigade.

What I need to Know

  • Membership of a brigade is open to all people who:
    • Have undertaken and passed a Pre-membership Check, which includes a Criminal History Check (CHC).
    • In the opinion of the Management Committee are a fit and proper person (a person who is suitable, appropriate and legally eligible to undertake a particular activity); and
    • Are older than 16 years of age.

How I do it

Applying for Membership

  • The prospective volunteer completes the Pre-membership Check and forwards the relevant forms to the Rural Operations Area Office. All forms must be completed by the perspective (sic) volunteer and not by any other party.
  • QFRS Rural Operations undertakes the Pre-membership check and notifies the prospective volunteer of the results
  • The applicant completes all relevant sections of the “Volunteer Membership Application Form” and submits the form, along with a copy of the letter from QFRS Rural Operations stating they have passed the Pre-membership check, to the Brigade Secretary.
  • The Secretary ensures that applicant has correctly completed and signed the application form and the letter from QFRS Rural Operations is attached.
  • The type of role, operational or non-operational, that the prospective volunteer is applying for (as outlined in the letter from QFRS Rural Operations) is noted.
  • One member of the Brigade proposes the applicant for membership.
  • Another Brigade member seconds the proposal in accordance with the Brigade Management Rules.
  • The Brigade Management Committee convenes and votes on the application.
  • If the applicant receives a majority of votes from the Management Committee he/she is accepted as a member. The First Officer signs the application form.
  • The Brigade Secretary retains a copy of the application form for Brigade administration and sends the original form to the Rural Operations Area Office.
  • The First Officer ensures that an induction session is undertaken with the new member as soon as practicable.
  • The First Officer ensures that for all new Operational Firefighter volunteers, training in Firefighter Minimum Skills (FMS) is undertaken with the new member as soon as practicable.

…"

  1. [12]
    Essentially, as the preamble notes, section C 1.2 provides information on the process for an individual to become a member of a rural fire brigade.  It does not lay out a code.  It is apparent that the manual was issued with the authority of the QFRS Commissioner.  Beyond Mr Gray, who appeared for the respondent, noting in his written submissions that the brigade's constitution provides that at cl.16(d) the application for membership shall be made using the official membership application found in the manual, no evidence was led, nor submission made, about the standing, force or effect of the manual.  Arguably, it is merely advisory.
  2. [13]
    It seems that Miss Clarke submitted all the required documentation.  This appears to be accepted by the respondent which noted in its written submissions:

"Miss Clarke’s steps to become a rural fire brigade member

It is not contested that Miss Clarke commenced the preliminary steps to obtain the Commissioner’s consent to become a rural fire brigade member.  A letter was sent on 31 March 2010 by Ms Marilyn Santinella, Administration Officer, Queensland Fire and Rescue Service (“QFRS”), South Eastern Region, to Miss Clarke,[3] in which she [wrote]:

Dear Llync-Chiann

Please find returned your Consent to Check National Police Records, pre membership check form & copy of your drivers (sic) licence as we need to have the following completed.

•  Drivers (sic) licence will need to have your current address (will accept where the back of the licence if it has the new address) not just hand 2 (sic) written advice

Once completed please return all the forms to:

Rural Operations

P.O. Box 31

IPSWICH. QLD. 4305

Yours sincerely"

  1. [14]
    It is apparent from that extract, and I so find, that Miss Clarke had submitted all the documentation that was required under the brigade's procedures.  It seems that she had advised the brigade that the address on her licence was not her current residential address and provided details of her current address.
  2. [15]
    It would appear that Ms Santinella took it upon herself to return the forms that Miss Clarke had provided in order that Ms Santinella could be furnished with a driver's licence showing Miss Clarke's then current residential address.  The evidence does not definitively disclose whether Miss Clarke received or responded to the letter.  However, the evidence of the appellant, Miss Clarke's husband who is semi-literate, is to the effect that Miss Clarke received "the paperwork back" on or about 29 September 2010 (the transcript reads "2000") and that the paperwork was taken to a general meeting on 30 September, at which time a majority of members voted, on Mr Jibson's motion,[4] to accept her application for membership.[5]  This is slightly supported by the evidence of Vivienne Jamerson, a member of the brigade and a somewhat unreliable witness, who said that she attended the meeting of 30 September and had sighted Miss Clarke's paperwork, "her police check and the one that comes from area to say she was accepted."[6]  However, Ms Jamerson, who at that meeting had been elected first officer, did not sign off on it because it had not been given to her to sign.[7]
  3. [16]
    The timing of events also supports the appellant.  The letter from Ms Santinella returning the forms was dated 31 March 2010.  The appellant's evidence is that his late wife received the paperwork on 29 September.  Contrary to Mr Gray's submission, it is highly unlikely that the appellant was referring to the March letter from Ms Santinella.
  4. [17]
    The evidence is consistent with Miss Clarke having returned the requested information to Ms Santinella sometime after March and supports an inference that the documents that the appellant saw were those referred to in the second dot point of section C 1.2 of the manual, the notification that Miss Clarke had satisfied the pre-membership check, as well as her completed application for membership form, the "RURAL FIRE BRIGADE MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION (18 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER)"[8], which is dated 30 September 2010. This is also consistent with Ms Jamerson's evidence that she had sighted the paperwork.  It is also consistent with her evidence that she had not signed the brigade endorsement section because it had not been put in front of her.[9]  This is understandable given she was elected as first officer at that meeting.  From this, and the fact that her signed application for membership forms (original, white, and carbon copy, yellow) are both still contained in the volume of application forms,[10]  I infer that Miss Clarke took her paperwork to the general meeting and completed her application form at that time. 
  5. [18]
    Although it appears that neither party has been able to locate a letter from the QFRS to the effect that Miss Clarke had passed the pre-membership check, and the evidence is silent on whether the Brigade Management Committee convened and voted on Miss Clarke's application, I find that Miss Clarke had submitted all relevant documents to the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service.
  6. [19]
    Section 7 of Miss Clarke's completed application contained an applicant endorsement in the following terms:

"7. Applicant Endorsement

  • I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the above details are correct.
  • I have successfully undertaken the Pre Membership Check and I have provided the brigade with a copy of the letter from QFRS Rural Operations supporting my application.
  • I acknowledge that I am not officially a brigade member nor will I participate in any brigade activities until my membership has been officially endorsed by the brigade.
  • I agree to return all Personal Protective Equipment provided to me by QFRS on resignation/termination of my membership."
  1. [20]
    Given my findings above, it follows that Miss Clarke's Applicant Endorsement was factually accurate, or at least, substantially so.
  2. [21]
    That Ms Jamerson did not sign the "Brigade Endorsement" section of the application form does not affect the validity of Miss Clarke's acceptance as a member when a majority found in her favour at the general meeting.  The brigade's constitution does not require an endorsement, nor for that matter does it require endorsement by the brigade's management committee, despite that procedure being contemplated by dot point 9 of section C 1.2.
  3. [22]
    It is also common ground that
  • Miss Clarke had been issued with some spare protective clothing, albeit she had not been formally issued with the clothing that is provided upon becoming a member of the brigade;
  • Miss Clarke performed some fire fighter's duties prior to and after 30 September 2010;
  • She had not obtained the approval of the Commissioner;
  • An endorsed application for membership had not been sent to the area office for validation;
  • Miss Clarke had not been assigned a voluntary identification number which is required before a person can access the member's portal and thus be able to record attendance at training.

None of these matters is directly relevant to the question of whether Miss Clarke had been properly accepted as a member of the brigade.  I note that s 81(3) of the FRS Act only requires the Commissioner's approval for the election of an officer.

  1. [23]
    The respondent, in referring to clause 16 of the brigade's constitution, submitted that "the procedure therefore incorporates the application form as an integral part in the process and a precondition to the majority vote to accept the application.  Subparagraphs (e) and (g) simply provide that based on the membership application form and the written support being provided, the membership application shall be accepted when the required number of votes have been made.  Those paragraphs proceed on the assumption that the application preconditions have been complied with.  The vote by the majority, does not operate to validate Miss Clarke's membership."
  2. [24]
    As is evident from my analysis above, I do not accept this submission.
  3. [25]
    This appears to be the core of the respondent's case.  Mr Gray submitted that the alleged misrepresentation by Miss Clarke in clause 7 of her application form to the effect that she had successfully undertaken the Pre Membership Check "and I have provided the brigade with a copy of the letter from QFRS Rural Operations successfully supporting my application" rendered the vote to accept her as a member invalid as it "was a fundamental contractual representation that she had the support by the QFRS for her application."
  4. [26]
    As I have found that Miss Clarke had not made a misrepresentation it is unnecessary that I consider Mr Gray's submissions regarding Wenzel and Another v Australian Stock Exchange Limited.[11]  However, in the event that my conclusion is incorrect, I will deal with it.
  5. [27]
    Mr Gray submitted that the membership application is contractual in nature and the undertaking made by Miss Clarke was a fundamental contractual representation that she had the support of the QFRS for her application.  By completing the endorsement and by letting her husband tell the meeting that she had been approved by QFRS Miss Clarke allowed the misrepresentation to occur.
  6. [28]
    Mr Gray put his submission thus:

The relevance of the applicant’s endorsement as explained by (sic) can be explained by the judgement of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Wenzel and Another v Australian Stock Exchange Ltd,[12] which required interpretation of applications for membership completed by Mr Wenzel and others. The relevant provisions of the membership application, as extracted in the judgement of the Court were:

"25  The primary judge referred to Art 38, and its requirement that each applicant for membership execute and deliver to the ASX an application in the form determined from time to time by the Board. He noted that cl 13 of that application form stated:

‘‘I acknowledge that this application is for admission to Australian Stock Exchange Limited upon the terms of and under and subject in all respects to its Memorandum and Articles of Association and Rules which now are or hereafter may be for the time being in force.’’

26  His Honour also noted that cl 14 of the application form stated:

‘‘I have read the Memorandum and Articles of Association and Rules of Australian Stock Exchange Limited as at this date and I have a working knowledge of the provisions of the Corporation [sic] Law. I acknowledge that any wilful omission or mis-statement upon a material point in or in connection with this application may lead to rejection of the application or, if the application is approved, subsequent expulsion from membership.’’"

The Court described a membership application as contractual in nature and as an offer, capable of acceptance; writing:[13]

"57 Where a person applies to become a member of a company, club or other organisation, the usual contractual analysis is that the application is an offer which the organisation may accept. Upon communication of acceptance a contract is constituted. By that contract the applicant becomes a member of the organisation and is contractually bound by its constitution. …"

Their Honours found that there was no contract, explaining:

"60  In our opinion, there was no such contract.

61  The terms of the application form are to be as determined from time to time by the Board: Art 38(1). The language of the application form is consistent only with it being, as it is described on the cover, a ‘‘membership application’’. The term ‘‘application’’ or ‘‘application for membership’’ is used throughout the form, and most importantly in cl 13 which is set out at [25] above.

62  The undertaking contained in cl 13 is the fundamental contractual promise which must inevitably be required of any person seeking to become a member of any organisation. Nowhere else in the evidence is there any other document which would fulfil this purpose. We cannot read the plain language of cl 13 as being an offer to enter into a contract limited to the processing of the application. Nowhere does the application form say ‘‘I offer to enter into a contract for the processing of my application’’, or words to that effect. On the appellants’ case the one document, the application form, has to serve as the offer for two distinct contracts. Hypothetically this could no doubt be done, but one would expect clear language to that effect and a statement as to how, and on the happening of what events, the two (or more) contracts were to come into being.”

  1. [29]
    I do not accept this submission.  The evidence does not support the contention that the "undertaking made by Miss Clarke" (actually an endorsement that she had completed her pre-membership check and had provided the brigade with a letter from QFRS Rural Operations supporting her application) was a "fundamental contractual representation".
  2. [30]
    Although the "Applicant Endorsement" in the application for membership form refers to a letter from QFRS Rural Operations supporting the application, section C 1.2 of the manual refers to no such thing.  The only reference to a QFRS letter is to the letter from QFRS notifying the prospective volunteer of the results of its Pre-membership check.[14]
  3. [31]
    A misrepresentation as to this, if what Miss Clarke did was a misrepresentation, cannot be characterized as a fundamental contractual representation.  I doubt that it was a misrepresentation to declare that she had QFRS support.  I infer, given that she had been acting as a volunteer fire fighter, both before and after 30 September 2010, it is likely that she considered that she had it, albeit not in writing. 
  4. [32]
    Further, as I observed above, the status and effect of the manual is unclear.  The evidence does not permit a finding that it was imported into any contract between Miss Clarke and the brigade.  Rule 16 merely requires that the application be made on the official membership application form. There was no acknowledgment regarding the consequences of any "wilful omission or mis-statement upon a material point in or in connection with" the application as was the case in Wenzel.  As the full court noted, citing the primary judge, the statutory declaration contained private, confidential information about an applicant's assets, liabilities and business background.[15]  The contrast between such a declaration and a declaration that Miss Clarke had the written support of QFRS is self-evident, as is the contrast between an application to become a member of a voluntary fire brigade and an application to become a member of a stock exchange.
  5. [33]
    Although not relevant to the determination of this appeal, it occurs to me that had Ms Santinella not returned Miss Clarke's paperwork in March 2010, but rather sought clarification of her address, the matter of Miss Clarke's application for membership may not have become an issue.  What is relevant is that Miss Clarke had, as long ago as six months before the meeting at which she became a member, provided the QFRS with all the information she was required to provide.  She had taken all steps that were necessary in order that QFRS could process her application.
  6. [34]
    I am satisfied that Miss Clarke was a member of a rural fire brigade, the Grantham Brigade at the time of her passing.  She had completed the necessary paperwork as she had filled out and signed the application form referred to in clause 16(d) of the brigade constitution.  Even if she had failed to provide the letter from QFRS Rural Operations referred to in her endorsement, for the reasons given above, that did not vitiate her application.  Critically, there was a vote to accept her application at the general meeting held on 30 September 2010.  By operation of clause 16(e) she was thereby accepted as a member of the brigade, and by operation of clause 16(g), she became a member on that date.
  7. [35]
    I need not deal with Mr Gray's submissions relating to Tanner.[16]  That case dealt with whether a person was eligible to be a member of a union having regard to whether the nature of the work performed by the applicant fell within the union's eligibility rule.  Nor do I need not consider Mr Rashleigh's, submissions regarding the beneficial nature of the WCR Act and the requirements in s. 320 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1999 that the Commission act according to equity, good conscience, etc. and that it is not bound by technicalities, etc.  In any event, they are misconceived.[17]
  8. [36]
    The appeal is allowed.  The decision of the regulator dated 4 June 2014 is set aside. The matter will be referred back to the regulator with a direction that it be remitted to WorkCover Queensland to determine the issue of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the WCR Act.  The regulator is to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal in a sum to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.
  1. [37]
    I determine and Order accordingly.

Footnotes

[1]Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 ss 27, 28, 29

[2] Exhibit A4

[3] Exhibit R1

[4] Transcript 1-48

[5] Transcript 1-45:35-45

[6] Transcript 1-16:45

[7] Transcript 1-16:40

[8] Exhibit A5

[9] Exhibit R9 which is a book containing Miss Clarke's application in duplicate( a copy of which is Exhibit A5)

[10] Exhibit R9

[11] (2002) 125 FCR 570

[12](2002) 125 FCR 570

[13] At page 582

[14]Exhibit A4, dot points 2 and 3 under the heading "Applying for Membership" in C 1.2

[15] (2002) 125 FCR 570 at 32

[16] Re Tanner; Re Armstrong; Re Inquiry into Election in Federated Clerks Union of Australia  (1986) 16 IR 210

[17] This case does not involve any ambiguity in legislation.  See: Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 010.  Section 320 of the IR Act does not apply to these proceedings.  See: Brisbane City Council v Gillow & Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) [2016] ICQ 007

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Gary Jibson v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Jibson v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • MNC:

    [2017] QIRC 75

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Kaufman DP

  • Date:

    08 Aug 2017

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
Brisbane City Council v Gillow [2016] ICQ 7
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] ICQ 7
Cite 2 - [2016] ICQ 7
Re Tanner; Re Armstrong; Re Inquiry into Election in Federated Clerks Union of Australia (1986) 16 IR 210
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1986) 16 IR 210
Cite 2 - (1986) 16 IR 210
Wenzel v Australian Stock Exchange Ltd (2002) 125 FCR 570
5 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2002) 125 FCR 570
Cite 2 - (2002) 125 FCR 570
Cite 3 - (2002) 125 FCR 570
Cite 4 - (2002) 125 FCR 570
Cite 5 - (2002) 125 FCR 570
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 10
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] ICQ 10
Cite 2 - [2016] ICQ 10

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.