Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2023
  4. Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2023] QIRC 310

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

Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] QIRC 310

Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] QIRC 310

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 310

PARTIES: 

Praljak, Adrian

(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator

(Respondent)

CASE NOS:

WC/2022/165

WC/2022/166

WC/2022/167

PROCEEDING:

Applications in existing proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

30 October 2023

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2023

MEMBER:

Merrell DP

PLACE OF HEARING:

Brisbane

ORDER:

The orders contained in paragraph [57] of these reasons for decision.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – three appeals by Appellant against three review decisions of the Respondent – review decisions determined that Appellant did not have a compensable injury within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 in respect of three different employers of the Appellant – Directions Orders issued by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission that the Appellant  files and serves Notices of Appeal that put the Respondent on notice of the cases it has to meet – Appellant failed on three occasions to file and serve notices of appeal that put the Respondent on notice of the cases it has to meet – applications by the Respondent, pursuant to r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, to dismiss the three proceedings on the grounds that the Appellant has failed to comply with Directions Orders made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission – no confidence that the Appellant will file and serve notices of appeal that will put the Respondent on notice of the cases it has to meet – all three proceedings dismissed pursuant to  r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 545 

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 5, r 6, r 41 and r 45

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 552A and s 558

CASES:

Church v (Simon Blackwood) Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] ICQ 031; (2015) 252 IR 461

House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499

Paul Scott v State of Queensland & Ors [2019] QIRC 115

APPEARANCES:

The Appellant by telephone.

Mr P. O'Neill of Counsel instructed by Ms C. Shedden of the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Mr Adrian Praljak is the appellant in three proceedings against three different review decisions of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Regulator'). The appeals against the three review decisions are made by Mr Praljak under ch 13, pt 3, div 1 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ('the Act'). Mr Praljak has filed a Notice of Appeal in respect of each review decision.
  1. [2]
    By applications in existing proceedings, filed on 28 September 2023, in respect of each of Mr Praljak's appeals, the Regulator has applied for orders, pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 ('the Rules') that Mr Praljak's three appeals be dismissed arising from the repeated failures by Mr Praljak to comply with Directions Orders made by the Commission in respect of filing the Notices of Appeal.
  1. [3]
    The question before me is whether I should exercise my discretion and dismiss Mr Praljak's three proceedings pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Rules.
  1. [4]
    For the reasons that follow, I will, pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Rules, dismiss Mr Praljak's three proceedings.

Background

Matter No. WC/2022/165

  1. [5]
    Matter No. WC/2022/165 concerns a short period of time when Mr Praljak was employed by Bond University. Mr Praljak made a workers' compensation claim, alleging that, over that time, he suffered an injury in that he was '… permanently sensory disabled with acrophobia'. Following an earlier review decision of the Regulator, that claim was rejected by WorkCover Queensland on the basis that Mr Praljak's employment with Bond University was not a significant contributing factor to that injury. Mr Praljak then sought a review of that decision by the Regulator.
  1. [6]
    By review decision dated 7 October 2022, the Regulator confirmed the earlier decision of WorkCover principally on the basis that, having regard to the medical evidence before it, Mr Praljak's employment with Bond University was not a significant contributing factor to his injury.
  1. [7]
    Mr Praljak appealed against that review decision by filing a Notice of Appeal on 10 October 2022 ('the Bond University appeal').

Matter No. WC/2022/166

  1. [8]
    Matter No. WC/2022/166 concerns three short periods of time when Mr Praljak was employed by James McConville and Associates, a law firm ('McConville'). Mr Praljak made a workers' compensation claim, alleging that, over those times, he suffered an injury namely, permanent '… sensory disabled Acrophobia'.
  1. [9]
    Again, following an earlier review decision of the Regulator, that claim was rejected by WorkCover on the basis that Mr Praljak's employment with McConville was not a significant contributing factor to that injury. Again, Mr Praljak sought a review of that decision by the Regulator.
  1. [10]
    Again, by review decision dated 7 October 2022, the Regulator confirmed the earlier decision of WorkCover principally on the basis that, having regard to the medical evidence before it, Mr Praljak's employment with McConville was not a significant contributing factor to his injury.
  1. [11]
    Mr Praljak appealed against that review decision by filing a Notice of Appeal on 10 October 2022 ('the McConville appeal').

Matter No. WC/2022/167

  1. [12]
    Matter No. WC/2022/167 concerns a short period of time when Mr Praljak was employed by Wyndham Vacation Resorts Pty Ltd ('Wyndham'). Mr Praljak made a workers' compensation claim, alleging that, over that time, he suffered an injury, namely, permanent '… sensory disabled Acrophobia'.
  1. [13]
    Once again, following an earlier review decision of the Regulator, that claim was rejected by WorkCover on the basis that Mr Praljak's employment with Wyndham was not a significant contributing factor to that injury. Once again, Mr Praljak sought a review of that decision by the Regulator.
  1. [14]
    Once again, by review decision dated 7 October 2022, the Regulator confirmed the earlier decision of WorkCover principally on the basis that, having regard to the medical evidence before it, Mr Praljak's employment with Wyndham was not a significant contributing factor to his injury.
  1. [15]
    Mr Praljak appealed against that review decision by filing a Notice of Appeal on 10 October 2022 ('the Wyndham appeal').

The proceedings before the Commission as currently constituted

  1. [16]
    The Bond University, McConville and Wyndham appeals were referred to me for conferencing pursuant to s 552A of the Act.
  1. [17]
    Mr  Praljak did not appear at a conference listed for 17 March 2023.
  1. [18]
    The matters were then listed for mention before me on 14 June 2023. At that mention, the Regulator took issue with the inadequate nature of the grounds of appeal and the facts alleged as contained in Mr Praljak's three Notices of Appeal in respect of the Bond University, McConville and Wyndham appeals.
  1. [19]
    There was merit in the issues that were taken by the Regulator.  The Notices of Appeal, in so far as is required by the prescribed forms for Notices of Appeal in relation to review decisions of the Regulator which can be appealed under the Act, did not reasonably put the Regulator on notice of the grounds of appeal and the facts thereupon relied.
  1. [20]
    As a consequence by a Further Directions Order dated 15 June 2023, I ordered that Mr Praljak file and serve amended Notices of Appeal. I also ordered that a s 552A conference be held before me on 14 August 2023.
  1. [21]
    Mr Praljak, on 16 June 2023, filed new Notices Of Appeal in relation to the Bond University, McConville and Wyndham appeals.
  1. [22]
    At the s 552A conference held on 14 August 2023, the issue of the adequacy of Mr Praljak's new Notices Of Appeal was again raised by the Regulator. Again, there was merit in the issues taken by the Regulator for the same reasons which became apparent at the mention on 14 June 2023.
  1. [23]
    As a consequence, on 14 August 2023, I made a Second Further Directions Order which ordered that Mr Praljak file and serve Further Amended Notices of Appeal in relation to the Bond University, McConville and Wyndham appeals. In particular, I ordered that Mr Praljak, in respect of each appeal, file and serve a Further Amended Notice of Appeal:

[W]hich puts the Respondent on notice of the case it has to come to meet in relation to the grounds of appeal (section 5 of the notice of appeal) and in relation to the facts relied on (section 6 of the notice of appeal).

  1. [24]
    I gave Mr Praljak until Friday, 29 September 2023 to file and serve such Further Amended Notices of Appeal.
  1. [25]
    This was because:
  • during the s 552A conference held on 14 August 2023, Mr Praljak informed me that he had applied to Legal Aid Queensland ('LAQ') for legal advice and legal representation in respect of his three appeals;[1]and
  • as a consequence, I wanted to ensure that Mr Praljak had a reasonable period of time to obtain a decision from LAQ and, if legal aid was granted to him, that he had a reasonable period of time to give instructions to LAQ in relation to filing and serving Further Amended Notices of Appeal which put the Regulator on notice of the cases it had to come to meet.[2]
  1. [26]
    On 17 August 2023, three days after the s 552A conference held on 14 August 2023, Mr Praljak filed and served new Notices of Appeal in relation to the Bond University, McConville and Wyndham appeals ('the 17 August Notices of Appeal').

The 17 August Notices of Appeal

  1. [27]
    Despite the particularity of the orders I made on 14 August 2023, in relation to the content of the Further Amended Notices of Appeal Mr Praljak was to file and serve, the 17 August Notices of Appeal do not reasonably put the Regulator on notice of the grounds of appeal and the facts thereupon relied in appealing the three review decisions.

Grounds of appeal

  1. [28]
    None of the 17 August Notices of Appeal set out any clear or cogent grounds of appeal, in relation to the circumstances of Mr Praljak's employment with Bond University, McConville or Wyndham, as to why the review decisions were wrong.
  1. [29]
    Each of the 17 August Notices of Appeal contain a series of almost identical complaints against Bond University, McConville and Wyndham about a range of irrelevant alleged civil wrongs and irrelevant alleged crimes, with the latter including, amongst others, allegations of sexual abuse against Mr Praljak and others.

Facts relied upon

  1. [30]
    None of the 17 August Notices of Appeal set out any facts, in relation to the circumstances of Mr Praljak's employment with Bond University, McConville or Wyndham, which may support any contention the review decisions were wrong.
  1. [31]
    Again, each of the 17 August Notices of Appeal contain a series of almost identical facts that are relied upon by Mr Praljak. In doing so, Mr Praljak also makes a number of irrelevant and vague allegations about new evidence which, as best as I understand it, he alleges support the criminal allegations he makes in the 17 August Notices of Appeal.
  1. [32]
    In terms of the decisions sought from the Commission arising out of each appeal:
  • in respect of the McConville appeal, Mr Praljak seeks $25,750,000.00 for loss of income and for general, aggravated and punitive damages;
  • in respect of the Bond University appeal, Mr Praljak seeks $55,750,000.00 for loss of income and for general, aggravated and punitive damages; and
  • in respect of the Wyndham appeal, Mr Praljak seeks $75,750,000.00 for loss of income and for general, aggravated and punitive damages. 
  1. [33]
    I fully accept that an appeal to the Commission, against a review decision of the Regulator, is a hearing de novo,[3] which means that the parties are to start the case again,[4] and the ambit of such a hearing is determined by the case which was before the Regulator, determined by any specific statutory provision which impinges upon the boundaries of the issue to be determined.[5]
  1. [34]
    Despite the nature of such an appeal, the prescribed form for a Notice of Appeal requires an appellant to set out, in a concise manner, the grounds as to why the review decision was wrong and a concise statement of the facts relied upon in support of those grounds. This is for the purpose of putting the Regulator and the Commission, from the start of the appeal process, on notice of those matters. One obvious purpose of this process is to reasonably allow the Regulator, as soon as the Notice of Appeal is served, to consider its position in relation to the appeal.
  1. [35]
    The obligations on an appellant are not particularly onerous, but the grounds of appeal and the facts relied upon must be relevant to the circumstances of the workers' compensation claim so as to provide a proper basis for challenging the correctness of the review decision.

 The Rules and the relevant principles

  1. [36]
    Rule 5 of the Rules relevantly provides that the Rules apply to a proceeding before the Commission.
  1. [37]
    Rule 6 relevantly provides that the purpose of the Rules is to provide for the just and expeditious disposition of the business of the Commission at a minimum of expense.
  1. [38]
    Rule 41(1) relevantly confers power on the Commission to make an order, referred to as a directions order, about the conduct of a proceeding.
  1. [39]
    Rule 45 provides:

45 Failure to attend or to comply with directions order

  1.  This rule applies if–
  1.  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
  1.  the party fails to attend the hearing or conference.
  1.  This rule also applies if–
  1.  a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar; and
  1.  the party fails to comply with the order.
  1.  The court, commission or registrar may–
  1.  dismiss the proceeding; or
  1.  make a further directions order; or
  1.  make another order dealing with the proceeding that the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate, including, for example, a final order; or
  1.  make orders under paragraphs (b) and (c).
  1. [40]
    In Paul Scott v State of Queensland & Ors,[6] Vice President O'Connor stated in respect of r 45 of the Rules:
  1. [8]
    In Quaedvlieg and Ors v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd his Honour President Hall, in dealing with an application to strike out for want of prosecution, cited with approval the reasoning of Thomas JA in Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor as follows:

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.

  1. [9]
    Whilst Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor related to the application of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 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.
  1. [10]
    In Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd, Wilcox and Gummow JJ in dealing with a similar provision under the Federal Court Rules stated that the discretion conferred by the rule was:

unconfined, except for the condition of noncompliance with a direction ... [b]ut two situations are obvious candidates for the exercise of the power." The first were "cases in which the history of non-compliance by an applicant is such as to indicate an inability or unwillingness to co‑operate with the Court and the other party or parties in having the matter ready for trial within an acceptable period". The second were cases "whatever the applicant's state of mind or resources - in which the non-compliance is continuing and occasioning unnecessary delay, expense or other prejudice to the respondent.

  1. [11]
    Their Honours went on to observe:

Even though the most recent non-compliance may be minor, the cumulative effect of an applicant's defaults may be such as to satisfy the judge that the applicant is either subjectively unwilling to co-operate, or for some reason, is unable to do so. Such a conclusion would not readily be reached; but where it was, fairness to the respondent would normally require the summary dismissal of the proceeding.

  1. [41]
    Vice President O'Connor also stated that the discretion conferred under r 45 must be exercised judicially.[7]

The Regulator's submissions

  1. [42]
    The Regulator submitted that each of Mr Praljak's proceedings should be dismissed because:
  • the 17 August Notices of Appeal did not comply with the Second Further Directions order I made on 14 August 2023;
  • Mr Praljak has been afforded three opportunities to provide proper Notices of Appeal, however he either has deliberately chosen not to do so or has been unable to provide compliant Notices of Appeal; and
  • it is in no better place now to understand the cases it has to meet at the hearing of the Bond University, McConville and Wyndham appeals and it appears that Mr Praljak is incapable of providing compliant Notices of Appeal.
  1. [43]
    In oral submissions, Mr O'Neill of Counsel, on behalf of the Regulator, submitted:
  • in light of Mr Praljak's three failures to produce Notices of Appeal, there is no good reason for the Commission not to grant the relief it seeks under r 45(3)(a) of the Rules;
  • if Mr Praljak presently lacks the capacity to file and serve Notices of Appeal that put it and the Commission on notice of his cases on appeal at this early stage, there is little likelihood he would be able to meet the more involved, subsequent procedural requirements of the Commission in appeals of this nature, such as the filing and serving of statements of facts and contentions; and
  • Mr Praljak's consistent failures prejudice not only it (the Regulator) and the Commission, but also other litigants before the Commission who want their matters heard and determined.

Mr Praljak's  submissions

  1. [44]
    Mr Praljak, contrary to the Directions Order I made on 29 September 2023, did not file any written submissions in response to the Regulator's written submissions in support if its applications in existing proceedings. In oral submissions, Mr Praljak submitted that:
  • he had good civil and legal causes of action, in torts, contract, equity and breach of duty of care, against the employers the subject of the review decisions which he is challenging;
  • WorkCover had made material errors of fact and law; and
  • LAQ denied him legal aid, being a decision which was confirmed on internal review by LAQ and which he is now challenging by way of external review.
  1. [45]
    In oral submissions, in reply, Mr O'Neill submitted, in response to Mr Praljak's assertions that he had good grounds to show that WorkCover had engaged in material errors of law and fact, the relevant paragraphs of the 17 August Notices of Appeal did not, in any precise or relevant way, identify those alleged errors. 

Mr Praljak's three proceedings should be dismissed

  1. [46]
    This is a case where I am persuaded to grant the relief sought by the Regulator. There are a number of reasons for this.
  1. [47]
    First, while it is unfortunate for Mr Praljak that LAQ has not granted him legal aid, that is a decision outside of my control. In any event, as stated earlier, Mr Praljak filed the 17 August Notices of Appeal without waiting for the reasonable time, I gave to him, to ascertain if LAQ would grant him legal aid.
  1. [48]
    Secondly, Mr Praljak has now had three opportunities to file and serve Notices of Appeal which reasonably put the Regulator on notice of the grounds of appeal and the facts relied upon in relation to the Bond University, McConville and Wyndham appeals. None of the grounds of appeal, and the facts relied upon, in 17 August Notices of Appeal are relevant to the circumstances of the workers' compensation claims that were made so as to provide a proper basis for challenging the correctness of the review decisions.
  1. [49]
    In particular, given the specific orders I made on 14 August 2023, by way of the Second Further Directions Order, it should have been very evident to Mr Praljak what was required in respect of the Further Amended Notices of Appeal so as to reasonably put the Regulator on notice of the cases it had to meet. Mr Praljak does not set out any precise and relevant grounds upon which he contends the review decisions (or any of the decisions made by WorkCover) were wrong in law or fact.
  1. [50]
    These failures followed on from the reasonable assistance I gave to Mr Praljak, at the mention on 14 June 2023[8] and at the s 552A conference on 14 August 2023,[9] about what was required to be contained in the Notices of Appeal he filed and served.
  1. [51]
    Thirdly, I have explained to Mr Praljak the limited nature of the statutory jurisdiction of this Commission in respect of appeals against review decisions of the Regulator.[10] That explanation has not been heeded by Mr Praljak.
  1. [52]
    Finally, I have no confidence that if I gave Mr Praljak a further opportunity to file Second Further Amended Notices of Appeal –  so as to achieve the purpose of reasonably putting the Regulator on notice of what his appeals are about in terms of grounds and facts –  he would be able to do so.
  1. [53]
    For these reasons, I will exercise my discretion pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Rules.
  2. [54]
    I will dismiss each of Mr Praljak's proceedings in WC/2022/165, WC/2022/166 and WC/2022/167.
  1. [55]
    The Regulator does not seek an order for costs.

Conclusion

  1. [56]
    For the reasons I have given, pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Rules, I dismiss each of Mr Praljak's proceedings.

Orders

  1. [57]
    I make the following orders:
  1. Pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, the Appellant's proceeding in Matter No. WC/2022/165 is dismissed.
  1. Pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, the Appellant's proceeding in Matter No. WC/2022/166 is dismissed.
  1. Pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, the Appellant's proceeding in Matter No. WC/2022/167 is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1] T 1-3, ll 29-44.

[2] T 1-8, ll 33-45.

[3] Church v (Simon Blackwood) Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] ICQ 031; (2015) 252 IR 461, [27] (Martin J, President).

[4] Ibid [29] and [30].

[5] Ibid [33].

[6] [2019] QIRC 115 ('Paul Scott').

[7] Paul Scott (n 6) [13], citing House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499, 504-505 (Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ).

[8] T 1-9, ll 20-47 and T 1-11, l 30 to T 1-12, l 41.

[9] T 1-4, l 37 to T 1-7, l 6.

[10] See for example, the transcript for the s 552A conference on 14 August 2023, T 1-5, l 4 to T 1-10, l 23.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • MNC:

    [2023] QIRC 310

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Merrell DP

  • Date:

    30 Oct 2023

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
Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (2015) 252 IR 461
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2015) 252 IR 461
Cite 2 - (2015) 252 IR 461
Church v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] ICQ 31
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] ICQ 31
Cite 2 - [2015] ICQ 31
House v R (1936) HCA 40
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1936) HCA 40
Cite 2 - (1936) HCA 40
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1936) 55 CLR 499
Cite 2 - (1936) 55 CLR 499
Paul Scott v State of Queensland [2019] QIRC 115
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QIRC 115
Cite 2 - [2019] QIRC 115

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Praljak v Bond University Ltd [2024] QSC 452 citations
Praljak v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 304 citations
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.