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

State of Queensland (Department of Education) v Shaw[2021] QIRC 194

State of Queensland (Department of Education) v Shaw[2021] QIRC 194

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

State of Queensland (Department of Education) v Shaw [2021] QIRC 194

PARTIES:

State of Queensland (Department of Education)

Applicant

v

Shaw, Trent

Respondent

CASE NO:

WC/2020/58

PROCEEDING:

Workers' Compensation Appeal - Application in existing proceeding

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2021

HEARING DATE:

24 May 2021

MEMBER:

McLennan IC

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

ORDER:

  1. That the Form 32A Attendance notice to give evidence issued to Mr Keith Williams dated 27 January 2021 is upheld.
  1. That the Form 32B Attendance notice to produce issued to Mr Keith Williams dated 27 January 2021 is set aside. 

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL – Application in existing proceeding – Applicant sought order to set aside the Form 32A and Form 32B pursuant to rr 59 and 61 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) – consideration of relevance – consideration of whether Respondent has failed to comply with requirement to pay conduct money

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 59, r 61

APPEARANCES:

Mr B Cramer of counsel, instructed by Crown Law for the Applicant.

Mr T Shaw, the Respondent in person.

Mr P B O'Neill of counsel directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator as an Interested Party.

Reasons for Decision

Delivered ex tempore on 24 May 2021

  1. [1]
    Having heard your oral submissions on the Department's Form 4 Application in existing proceedings, this is what I have decided:
  • The Form 32A Attendance notice to give evidence issued to Mr Keith Williams dated 27 January 2021 is upheld.
  • The Form 32B Attendance notice to produce issued to Mr Keith Williams dated 27 January 2021 is set aside.
  1. [2]
    With respect to that decision though, just a few things.  I remind the parties to the substantive matter that the questions to be decided at the hearing next week are: 
  • What is the psychological/psychiatric condition that Mr Shaw has? 
  • When was the psychological/psychiatric condition sustained? Mr Shaw says 4 April 2019 and diagnosed on 5 April 2019, but the Regulator says from 2017.
  • Did the injury arise out of or in the course of Mr Shaw's employment or was it a continuation of the psychological/psychiatric condition experienced from 2017?  Or was it an aggravation of a pre-existing psychological/psychiatric condition?
  • Was Mr Shaw's employment the major significant contributing factor to his injury? 
  • Did the employer's response to Mr Shaw's workplace issues constitute reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way? 

And those were confirmed by the parties at the last Mention in this matter.

  1. [3]
    So that is the scope of matters to be decided.  It is not, as Mr O'Neill rightly observed, a free-ranging 'Royal Commission' into the all and every of Kin Kin State School. However, out of an abundance of fairness - and perhaps too of caution - I will uphold the notice requiring Mr Williams to be a witness.  Should the line of inquiry Mr Shaw wishes to run not be directly relevant though, and the Regulator objects to it on that basis, then I will decide that on the day. So it is certainly something to mind.
  1. [4]
    That said, it may be pertinent to the last question that I have just recapped. I have seen it is referred to in the amended list of stressors, filed by Mr Shaw, so I will not require you to amend your Statement of Facts and Contentions at this point. 
  1. [5]
    In terms of 'how' that can occur, given the Hearing is next week, I am satisfied that Mr Williams can give his evidence via video-link. That should minimise logistical disruptions to him, located in Brisbane, for the relatively short time he will be required.  It also deals with the management of attendance money. Mr Shaw is to pay for Mr Williams' time to give evidence of one hour by Friday, 28 May 2021.  The Department should please advise Mr Shaw 'how' to make this payment and 'how much' one hour of time is quantified as by the close of business today.
  1. [6]
    Regarding the Form 32B decision - any documents Mr Shaw considers to be relevant to a matter at issue in these proceedings needs to be disclosed to the Regulator as soon as possible.  We have made that point on numerous occasions, ahead of getting to here.  Mr O'Neill has observed that the Regulator has not seen some of the documents spoken to by Mr Shaw this morning. That is a concern.  So please deal with that, Mr Shaw.
  1. [7]
    Other observations regarding the Form 32B decision I have made - I appreciate the Department's point that my previous decision addresses much of that request made by Mr Shaw, though he is making it now through a different pathway. My decision therefore is unchanged.  I also agree with the Department's position that there are documents not in possession or in control of Mr Williams personally – and so it is futile on that basis.
  1. [8]
    I order accordingly.

Orders:

  1. That the Form 32A Attendance notice to give evidence issued to Mr Keith Williams dated 27 January 2021 is upheld.
  1. That the Form 32B Attendance notice to produce issued to Mr Keith Williams dated 27 January 2021 is set aside. 
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    State of Queensland (Department of Education) v Shaw

  • Shortened Case Name:

    State of Queensland (Department of Education) v Shaw

  • MNC:

    [2021] QIRC 194

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Member McLennan IC

  • Date:

    24 May 2021

Appeal Status

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

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.