Workers' Compensation Regulator v Manu
[2021] QIRC 298
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 Manu[2021] QIRC 298
- Add to List
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Manu[2021] QIRC 298
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Manu[2021] QIRC 298
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Workers' Compensation Regulator v Manu [2021] QIRC 298 |
PARTIES: | Workers' Compensation Regulator (Applicant) v Manu, Joseph (Respondent) |
CASE NO: | WC/2020/172 |
PROCEEDING: | Application to dismiss |
DELIVERED ON: | 26 August 2021 |
HEARING DATE: | 26 August 2021 |
MEMBER: | O'Connor VP |
HEARD AT: | 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 Joseph Manu ('the Appellant'), being matter WC/2020/172, be dismissed pursuant to rule 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the IR Rules').
Background
- [2]At the relevant time of the alleged injury, the Appellant was employed as a Labourer by Di Tullio Construction Group Pty Ltd.
- [3]The Appellant's WorkCover claim referred to injuries of an orthopaedic and psychiatric nature arising out of a work accident which occurred on 20 April 2018.
- [4]On 3 December 2020, the Regulator confirmed a decision of WorkCover Queensland to reject the Appellant's claim for damages in accordance with s 32 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the WCR Act').
- [5]On 22 December 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]Following receipt of the notice of appeal, the Commission issued a Directions Order on 23 December 2020 requiring the parties to exchange the necessary documents in preparation for hearing.
- [9]On 14 January 2021, the Regulator emailed the Appellant their list of documents in accordance with the Directions Order.
- [10]On this same day, the Commission received a Form 35 – notice of withdrawal of appointment of lawyer from Slater and Gordon Lawyers.
- [11]On 15 January 2021, the Regulator sent an email to the Appellant directly, seeking his intentions and following up on the list of documents required by the Directions Order.
- [12]On 1 February 2021, the Regulator emailed the Commission advising that the Appellant had not complied with the Directions Order. The Commission emailed the parties on 2 February 2021 requesting that the Appellant advise his intentions. No response was provided by the Appellant.
- [13]On 11 February 2021, the Commission vacated the Directions Order dated 23 December 2020 due to the Appellant's non-compliance.
- [14]On 5 May 2021, the Commission emailed the parties seeking an update in the matter. Again, no response was provided by the Appellant.
- [15]The matter was listed for Call Over on 13 July 2021. The Regulator was in attendance however the Appellant failed to appear.
- [16]On 19 July 2021, the Regulator attempted to contact the Appellant by email which stated:
Dear Joseph
I refer to the appeal filed in the Qld Industrial Relations Commission by your previous solicitors Slater and Gordon.
Would you please sign and return the attached request to discontinue your appeal and I will provide it to the Commission.
This will avoid a further requirement to attend the Commission on 4 August 2021.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Carolyn Shedden
- [17]No response was received from the Appellant.
Conclusion
- [18]
…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.
- [19]It is submitted by the Regulator that this is a case where the discretion vested in the Commission by rule 45 of the IR Rules warrants the dismissal of the Appellant's appeal as further proceedings are not necessary nor desirable in the public interest.
- [20]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.
- [21]Having regard to the history of this matter, in particular: the failure to comply with the Directions Order dated 23 December 2020; the failure to respond to the Commission's email correspondence; and the 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.
- [22]Appropriate grounds have been formed to exercise a discretion to dismiss the proceeding. Accordingly, I make the following orders:
Orders
- The appeal (WC/2020/172) is dismissed pursuant to rule 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011.
- There is no order as to costs.