Workers' Compensation Regulator v Reynolds
[2021] QIRC 297
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Workers' Compensation Regulator v Reynolds[2021] QIRC 297
- Add to List
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Reynolds[2021] QIRC 297
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Reynolds[2021] QIRC 297
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Workers' Compensation Regulator v Reynolds [2021] QIRC 297 |
PARTIES: | Workers' Compensation Regulator (Applicant) v Reynolds, Brooke (Respondent) |
CASE NO: | WC/2020/66 |
PROCEEDING: | Application to dismiss |
DELIVERED ON: | 26 August 2021 |
HEARING DATE: | 26 August 2021 |
MEMBER: HEARD AT: | O'Connor VP Brisbane |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – where application in existing proceedings filed to dismiss matter pursuant to rule 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) – where failure of respondent to comply with directions order – where failure of respondent to attend hearing – where respondent has not taken any steps to progress appeal – whether discretion to dismiss proceeding is enlivened. |
LEGISLATION: | Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), r 45 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32, s 549 |
CASES: | House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Quaedvlieg & Ors v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] ICQ 59 Quinlan v Rothwell [2002] 1 QdR 647 |
APPEARANCES: | Ms C. Shedden, for the Applicant. No appearance for the Respondent. |
Reasons for Decision (ex tempore)
- [1]The Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Regulator') has made an application to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') seeking an order that the appeal lodged by Brooke Reynolds ('the Appellant'), being matter WC/2020/66, be dismissed pursuant to rule 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the IR Rules').
Background
- [2]By way of background, at the relevant time of the alleged injury, the Appellant was employed as a Tutorial Support Officer and formerly, a School Pathway Specialist at Youth Connections Group Pty Ltd.
- [3]The Appellant made a claim to WorkCover for a psychiatric injury sustained in the course of employment due to events including alleged bullying, an excessive workload and a requirement to complete tasks which the Appellant considered to be unethical.
- [4]On 11 May 2020, the Regulator confirmed a decision of WorkCover Queensland to reject the Appellant's application for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the WCR Act').
- [5]On 1 June 2020, the Appellant lodged a notice of appeal against the decision of the Regulator in the Commission pursuant to s 549 of the WCR Act.
The Application
- [6]The Regulator relies on rule 45 of the IR Rules, which relevantly provides:
- Failure to attend or to comply with directions order
- (1)This rule applies if –
- (a)a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar stating a time, date and place for a hearing or conference for the proceeding; and;
- (b)the party fails to attend the hearing or conference.
- (2)This rule also applies if –
- (a)a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar; and
- (b)the party fails to comply with the order.
- (3)The court, commission or registrar may –
- (a)dismiss the proceeding; …
- [7]An affidavit provided by Ms Carolyn Shedden, affirmed on 26 July 2021, sets out the timeline forming the basis upon which this application is made.
- [8]This affidavit, together with the application to dismiss and written submissions, was emailed to the parties by the Industrial Registry on 26 July 2021. Accordingly, I am satisfied the Appellant has been sufficiently notified of these proceedings.
- [9]Following receipt of the notice of appeal, the Commission issued a Directions Order on 1 June 2020 requiring the parties to exchange relevant documents in preparation for a conference.
- [10]On 29 June 2020, the Regulator emailed the Appellant their list of documents in accordance with the Directions Order.
- [11]On 16 July 2020, the Regulator advised the Commission and Appellant by email that no list of documents had been received from the Appellant. The Commission advised the parties the matter would be placed in abeyance as a result of the non-compliance.
- [12]On 17 August 2020, the Appellant emailed the Regulator advising of her intention to proceed with the appeal. The Regulator suggested that the Appellant contact the Commission to which the Appellant acknowledged.
- [13]On 25 August 2020, the Appellant contacted the Commission seeking the matter remain in abeyance for another two months. The Industrial Registry communicated the request to both parties and advised the matter would remain in abeyance.
- [14]On 2 December 2020, the Commission emailed the parties requesting an update in the matter. A response was received on 18 January 2021 where the Appellant requested the matter remain in abeyance due to being unwell. The Industrial Registry forwarded the request to both parties and confirmed the matter would remain in abeyance.
- [15]On 17 March 2021, the Commission emailed the parties requesting they advise whether a new set of directions may be issued to progress the matter. No response was received.
- [16]The matter was listed for Call Over on 13 July 2021. The Regulator was in attendance however there was no appearance recorded for the Appellant.
- [17]In the affidavit of Ms Shedden, an email dated 19 July 2021 is exhibited which states the following:
Dear Brooke
I refer to your appeal in the Qld Industrial Relations Commission and note that you did not make an appearance in the Commission on 13 July 2021 (copy of Notice attached)
Should you no longer wish to proceed with your appeal and to avoid any future applications, please sign and return the attached Form 27 – Request to discontinue and I will file it in the Commission.
I am happy to discuss this with you should you wish to contact me.
Kind regards
Carolyn Shedden
- [18]No response was received from the Appellant.
Conclusion
- [19]
…the rules of court are not an end in themselves. They do not exist for the discipline of practitioners or clients, or for the protection of courts from inefficient litigants, but rather as a means of ensuring that issues will be defined in an orderly way and that parties have the opportunity of full preparation of their case before the trial commences. The rules also afford defendants the means of bringing to an end actions in which the other party will not abide by the rules.
- [20]It is submitted by the Regulator that rule 45 of the IR Rules vests in the Commission a discretion to dismiss the Appellant's appeal in circumstances where further proceedings are not necessary nor desirable in the public interest.
- [21]The discretion conferred under rule 45 of the IR Rules must be exercised judicially.[4] In my view, the discretion to dismiss these proceedings has been enlivened.
- [22]Having regard to the history of this matter, in particular, the failure to comply with the Directions Order dated 1 June 2020 and failure to attend both the Call Over on 13 July 2021 and this hearing, the Appellant has demonstrated, in my mind, an unwillingness to proceed with the appeal.
- [23]Appropriate grounds have been formed to exercise a discretion to dismiss the proceeding. Accordingly, I make the following orders:
Orders
- The appeal (WC/2020/66) is dismissed pursuant to rule 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.
- There is no order as to costs.