Schippers v Workers' Compensation Regulator
[2024] QIRC 262
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
- Schippers v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2024] QIRC 262
- Add to List
Schippers v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2024] QIRC 262
Schippers v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2024] QIRC 262
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Schippers v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 262 |
PARTIES: | Kylie-Jayne Schippers (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent) |
CASE NO: | WC/2023/49 |
PROCEEDING: | Application in existing proceedings |
DELIVERED ON: | 8 November 2024 |
MEMBER: | Caddie IC |
HEARD AT: | On the papers |
ORDER: | Pursuant to r 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), the appeal WC/2023/49 is dismissed. |
CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPEAL – WORKERS' COMPENSATION – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – where an application has been brought to dismiss proceeding – where Appellant failed to comply with directions – where a scheduled hearing was vacated – where just and expeditious disposition required – whether discretion enlivened to dismiss proceeding. |
LEGISLATION: | Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) rr 6, 45. |
CASES: | House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499. Supercar Rides Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 276. |
Reasons for Decision
Introduction
- [1]Ms Kylie-Jane Schippers worked as a kitchen attendant for Sodexo at the Labona Mine Site, where she claims she sustained a psychological injury caused by bullying and sexual harassment. Workcover rejected her claim, and she applied for a review with the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The Regulator confirmed the decision to reject her claim.
- [2]Ms Schippers lodged an appeal against the Regulator's decision in April 2023.
- [3]This decision concerns an application within proceedings from the Regulator seeking an order that the appeal be dismissed. The order is sought due to Ms Schippers' repeated failure to comply with directions of the Commission as outlined in Rule 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld).
Has Ms Schippers failed to comply with Commission directions?
- [4]A chronology of procedural steps provides the factual context for my decision.
- [5]At the commencement of proceedings Ms Schippers was legally represented. Initial directions in the matter were complied with.
- [6]The matter was mentioned on 23 January 2024 to discuss hearing logistics. Ms Schippers' lawyers raised at that mention that they would be seeking leave to file an amended statement of facts and contentions and undertook to supply draft directions. Following further correspondence between parties and the Industrial Registry, on 13 March 2024, the matter was listed for a three-day hearing in Townsville commencing 3 September 2024.
- [7]On 17 May 2024, the Registry contacted parties seeking the draft directions from Ms Schippers' representatives or advice as to whether a further mention was required. No response was received and the matter was called on for mention on 5 August 2024. At the mention, Ms Schippers' representatives advised the delay was due to them awaiting her instructions. The following week, Ms Schippers legal representatives withdrew.
- [8]The Registry contacted Ms Schippers directly, seeking that she urgently advise her intentions in relation to the matter by 15 August 2024. It was noted that if no advice was received the listing would be cancelled and her matter would be placed in abeyance.
- [9]Ms Schippers called the Registry on 16 August 2024 to advise she intended to proceed with her appeal and the three-day hearing. The Regulator subsequently requested a mention to discuss logistics, including whether Ms Schippers would rely on the filed statement of facts and contentions, and what times she had her witnesses booked in to give evidence at hearing. The Regulator noted Ms Schippers had not called any medical expert witnesses, and that the Regulator had not admitted that she suffered a personal injury.[1]
- [10]A mention was listed for 26 August 2024. There was no attendance by or for Ms Schippers. The scheduled hearing for the following week was vacated.
- [11]On 15 October 2024 the Regulator filed the current strike out application along with a supporting affidavit. The matter was allocated to me for determination.
- [12]I issued Directions on 15 October 2024 for Ms Schippers to provide submissions as to why the Commission should not dismiss the Appeal under r 45 of the Rules.
- [13]Ms Schippers did not respond to the Directions or file submissions. The Directions provided that if Ms Schippers filed no submissions, the Regulator would not be required to file further material and I would determine the matter on the papers.
- [14]I find on the basis of these facts that Ms Schippers has failed on multiple occasions since May 2024 to attend and otherwise comply with directions of this Commission. The failure to comply, even when in defence of her own appeal, suggests little capacity or intention to proceed with the substantive matter.
What do the Rules require?
- [15]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.[2]
- [16]Rule 45 provides:
- 45Failure to attend or 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).
- [17]The power under r 45(3)(a) involves an exercise of discretion. Discretion must be 'exercised judicially, according to the rules of reason and justice, and not arbitrarily or capriciously or according to private opinion.[3]
- [18]
- [14]In Quadvlieg 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.
- [15]While Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor related to the application of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 in respect of an application to dismiss for want of prosecution, in my respectful view, the reasoning of Thomas JA has equal application to the current proceedings.
Should the appeal be dismissed?
- [19]Having found repeated non-compliance with the Rules, the discretion to dismiss this proceeding has been enlivened.
- [20]Ms Schippers has had no contact in relation to these proceedings since she called the Registry on 16 August 2024 to advise she was ready to proceed. She then failed to attend the mention on 26 August 2024 as directed. The three-day hearing had to be vacated. Faced with the prospect of her appeal being dismissed, Ms Schippers has again failed to comply with a direction to make any submissions in support of her appeal. These are appropriate grounds to exercise the discretion to dismiss the appeal.
Order
- [21]I make the following order:
- 1.Pursuant to r 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), the appeal WC/2023/49 is dismissed.