Swift v Workers' Compensation Regulator
[2023] QIRC 27
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
- Swift v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] QIRC 27
- Add to List
Swift v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] QIRC 27
Swift v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] QIRC 27
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Swift v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 027 |
PARTIES: | Swift, Kym Elizabeth (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent) |
CASE NO: | WC/2020/133 |
PROCEEDING: | Application in existing proceedings |
DELIVERED ON: | 27 January 2023 |
HEARING DATES: | 13 July 2021 19 May 2022 27 June 2022 |
MEMBER: | O'Connor VP |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPEAL – WORKERS' COMPENSATION – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – where an application has been brought to dismiss proceeding – where there exists a history of non‑compliance and failure to attend hearings – where just and expeditious disposition required – whether discretion enlivened to dismiss proceeding – appeal dismissed. |
LEGISLATION: | Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), r 5, r 6, r 45 |
CASES: | House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Quaedvlieg and Ors v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd (2005) 180 QGIG 1209 Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor [2002] 1 Qd R 647 |
APPEARANCES: | No appearance from the Appellant. Mr G. Clark for the Regulator. |
Reasons for Decision
- [1]The Workers' Compensation Regulator (the Respondent in the substantive proceedings) filed an application on 31 August 2022 to strike out appeal WC/2020/133. The application was accompanied by an affidavit of Ms Lesley Shaw, Senior Appeals Officer setting out a chronology of the matter and attaching supporting documentation.
- [2]This matter was first listed for mention on 13 July 2021 at which time Ms Swift (the Appellant) stated she had not received the first directions order. Directions were then reissued. Following no contact from the Appellant in response to the directions, the matter was listed for call-over on 19 May 2022. There was no appearance by the Appellant. Mr Clark, representing the Respondent, indicated the last communication from the Appellant was in January 2022 when the Appellant said there were health issues and she would like to put the matter aside for the time being.[1]
- [3]The matter was listed for further mention on 27 June 2022 and there was still no appearance by the Appellant. Mr Clark said as there had been a lack of communication of recent times, the Respondent had no idea what the Appellant's intentions were in this matter. In the circumstances, Mr Clark indicated the Respondent would proceed to file an application to strike the matter out.[2] This decision is in response to such application.
Background
- [4]The original appeal was filed on 15 October 2020. On the same day the Industrial Registry issued directions for filing relevant documentation. Further directions were issued on 15 July 2021, 27 August 2021 and 14 September 2021 for reasons including non-compliance, medical circumstances and carer responsibilities by the Appellant. Final directions were issued on 19 September 2022 in response to this application to strike out. No further communication has been received from the Appellant.
The Rules
- [5]Rule 5 of Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the Rules') provides that the Rules apply to a proceeding before the Court, the Commission, a Magistrate or the Registrar.
- [6]Rule 6 of the Rules sets out the purpose of the rules as follows:
The purpose of these rules is to provide for the just and expeditious disposition of the business of the court, the commission, a magistrate and the registrar at a minimum of expense.
- [7]Clearly r 6 recognises the obligation placed, in this instance, on the Commission and implicitly on the parties to ensure the expeditious disposition of matters in the Commission.
- [8]Rule 45 provides:
- 45Failure 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; or
- (b)make a further directions order; or
- (c)make another order dealing with the proceeding that the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate, including, for example, a final order; or
- (d)make orders under paragraphs (b) and (c).
- [9]
Consideration
- [10]
There is now a consciousness of the need for some level of efficiency in the use of the courts as a public resource. That, of course, must not displace the need for reasonable access to the courts and the provision of justice according to law in each matter, but it highlights the fact that the former laissez faire attitude by courts towards the leisurely conduct of actions at the will of the parties has ended. At the same time 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.
- [11]Whilst Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor related to the application of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) in respect of application to dismiss for want of prosecution, in my respectful view, the reasoning of Thomas JA has equal application to the current proceedings.
- [12]The discretion to dismiss this proceeding has, in my view, been enlivened. Accordingly, having regard to the history of unjustified non-compliance with the directions' orders, the absence of any communication with the Appellant since January 2022 and, in particular, her failure to attend the call-over on 19 May 2022 and the mention on 27 June 2022 are all appropriate grounds to exercise the discretion to dismiss the proceeding.
- [13]Accordingly, I order that:
- Pursuant to rule 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), appeal WC/2020/133 is dismissed.
- There be no order as to costs.