Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Queensland Alumina Limited v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 182

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

Queensland Alumina Limited v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2025] QIRC 182

Queensland Alumina Limited v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2025] QIRC 182

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Queensland Alumina Limited v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 182

PARTIES:

Queensland Alumina Limited

Appellant

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator

Respondent

CASE NO:

WC/2023/109

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

17 July 2025

HEARING DATES:

27 August 2024

28 August 2024

MEMBER:

Pratt IC

HEARD AT:

Gladstone

ORDERS:

  1. The appeal is dismissed.
  1. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 7 July 2023 is confirmed.
  1. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's cost of and incidental to the appeal on an agreed basis, and if no agreement can be reached, the parties are to be heard on costs.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR – where the appellant appeals decision of the respondent setting aside WorkCover's rejection of and instead accepting a worker's claim for compensation – where key issue is whether the worker's injury arose out of or in the course of employment within the meaning of s 32(1) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where appellant appeals decision on ground that injury did not arise out of, or in the course of, the worker's employment with the appellant – where, alternatively, appellant appeals decision on ground that injury was an exacerbation or aggravation of a pre-existing injury – where medical evidence showed that injury was a bucket handle meniscal tear – where medical evidence disputes whether the mechanism of injury compatible with pathology – consideration of s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where appellant argues that the injury could not have occurred during employment or been caused by the employment – where the respondent argues that the injury was one that did occur during employment and was caused by the employment – held that medical evidence consistent with the worker's evidence – held that worker's injury was a personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment – appeal dismissed.

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 531

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32

CASES:

Evans v The Queen (2007) 235 CLR 52

Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 125

Gardiner v Land Agents Board (1976) 12 SASR 458

Goldsmith v Sandilands (2002) 190 ALR 370

IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300

King v Workers' Compensation Regulator (2019) 290 IR 380

Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390

Leigh v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2025] QIRC 023

Leighton Contractors Pty Limited AND Q-COMP [2011] QIRComm 127

Polizzi v Commissioner of Police [No 2] [2017] WASC 166

Poochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 64

QR Limited AND Q-COMP [2011] QIRComm 102

Rimland v State of Queensland (Department of Communities, Disability Services and Seniors) [2022] ICQ 9

R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228

Self and Bishop v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2024] QIRC 271

Smith v R (2001) 206 CLR 650

SPE Pty Ltd AND Q-COMP and Gary Clifford Fuller [2010] QIRComm 118

Toll Holdings Limited AND Q-COMP [2011] QIRComm 133

APPEARANCES:

Ms B Stringer of counsel, instructed by Ms L Dorricott of Corrs Chambers Westgarth, for the appellant.

Mr S McLeod KC of counsel for the respondent.

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    This is an appeal by Queensland Alumina Ltd ('Appellant') against the decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('Respondent') setting aside WorkCover Queensland's rejection of Mr Aiden Johnston's claim for compensation ('Decision').

Issue

  1. [2]
    The determination of this appeal is based entirely on a factual dispute. It is agreed that Mr Johnston was at the relevant time a "worker" employed by the Appellant pursuant to s 11 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('WCR Act'). It is also agreed that Mr Johnston has at some point sustained a right knee injury; specifically, a displaced bucket handle meniscal tear. The key fact in issue is whether Mr Johnston's injury arose out of or in the course of his employment with the Appellant pursuant to s 32(1) of the WCR Act.

Grounds of appeal

  1. [3]
    The Appellant advanced two grounds of appeal. First, that Mr Johnston's knee injury did not arise out of, or in the course of, Mr Johnston's employment with the Appellant, nor was his employment with the Appellant a significant contributing factor to the injury.[1] Second, put as an alternative, even if the injury did arise out of or in the course of employment with the Appellant, the injury is only an exacerbation or aggravation of a pre-existing knee injury.[2]

Relevant background

  1. [4]
    Mr Johnston was employed by the Appellant as an Alumina Producer – Process (Precipitation) at the Appellant's alumina refinery in Gladstone, Queensland at the relevant times.[3] Mr Johnston has a history of injury to his right knee. He injured that knee playing soccer around September 2012,[4] and subsequent ultrasound and MRI scans on 14 February 2013 and 25 February 2013 revealed that Mr Johnston had suffered a meniscal tear.[5] He then underwent a right knee arthroscopy for this tear on 21 March 2013.[6] Mr Johnston again injured his right knee while playing soccer in mid-April 2014, and the MRI scan on 29 April 2024 revealed a meniscal tear. He did not undergo surgery for this tear on recommendation of Dr Willem Pretorius on 13 May 2024.[7]

The nature of the relevant work

  1. [5]
    During the 8 and 9 March 2023 shift in question, and after the 9:00 pm break, Mr Johnston performed the 'tank movements' task.[8] Mr Johnston was experienced in the tank movements task, it being a common task for him.[9] The tank movements task generally involves "putting up barricades, jackhammering flumes [an area between two precipitation tanks], and hosing the flumes".[10] It takes about an hour to complete a tank movement. Mr Johnston and his co-workers completed four tank movements during the 12-hour shift while being indirectly supervised by Mr Danny Rowe.[11]
  1. [6]
    The nature of the relevant work is drawn from the oral evidence of Mr Johnston, his supervisor, Mr Rowe, co-workers on shift, Mr Langanke, Mr Graham and Ms Myers.[12] It is, for the most part, not controversial evidence. The task of "tank movements" that was being undertaken at the time Mr Johnston claims the injury occurred involved removing a piece of plant called a "blind", cleaning the area so that the replacement blind can be fitted and then installing a replacement blind. The work is carried out in teams of four workers. It usually involved one worker stepping down into a "flume pit" in order to carry out the removal, cleaning and replacement work. The physical demands of the work, somewhat intensified by the positions workers needed to squat or stand in so they could perform the work, meant that the workers often took turns in doing the work in the flume pit.
  1. [7]
    The flume pit houses a flume, which is essentially an overflow from one tank to another. It is accessed by first going to the top floor of the relevant structure, which is a floor built over the top of large processing tanks. For ease of reference, I refer to that as the "main floor". The worker steps down about half a metre from the main floor onto a platform, under which the flume pit is located. In the photos admitted into evidence there is a permanently affixed ladder running from the main floor to the flume platform. The size of the flume platform varies from one to the other. Some platforms are rectangular and others squarer. Nothing in this case turns on that platform shape or sizing, however.
  1. [8]
    The platform is thus a middle level between the main floor and the "flume deck". This platform is comprised of a combination of checker plate around the edges, which looks to be more or less permanently fixed, and heavy steel grill sections in the middle. These grill sections can be lifted out of the platform to gain access to the flume deck. Not all the heavy grill sections covering the flume pit need to be lifted out of the platform floor to access the flume deck. For example, one photo tendered as evidence shows that one of two of these grill sections is lifted out and placed on the remaining grill section/s so that there is sufficient room for a worker to get down from the platform onto the flume deck.[13] Estimates are that the platform is located about 400-500 mm below the main floor height, and the flume pit floor is about the same distance again down from the platform floor.
  1. [9]
    In simple terms, a "blind" is a flat rectangular metal assembly that is used to change the direction of fluid flow at the top of a processing tank. It sits inside the flume and is attached by fasteners to a "locking bar", which also needs removing in order to change out the blind. The size and weight of each blind varies. The weight of blinds is not agreed between the parties. The Appellant contends that the relevant blinds weighed 30 kilograms,[14] while the Respondent contends that they weighed between 30 and 50 kilograms.[15] The parties do not dispute that there are larger blinds and smaller ones. Mr Johnston's evidence was that the blinds being replaced on 8 March 2023 were the "large ones" that weighed more than 30 kilograms.[16] 
  1. [10]
    To carry out the work, the relevant worker must access the flume deck below the platform. He or she must then loosen several fasteners that are holding the blind to the locking bar, remove the locking bar and pass that up to co-workers on the platform or main floor who lift it away. The worker then manoeuvres the blind out of its location below the flume deck and lifts it up and out of the opening. He or she then passes it up to a colleague on the main floor or the platform, depending on the size of that particular flume pit and platform area.
  1. [11]
    Two people could potentially fit within the flume deck space. Evidence brought by the Appellant from Mr Rowe, a supervisor for the Appellant, was that two people would often work in that space.[17] Mr Johnston's evidence, however, was that two people could not do so safely, and that it was usually one person at a time working in the flume on the flume deck.[18] A worker will generally move in and out of a flume multiple times during the course of a shift.
  1. [12]
    Mr Rowe described the position required to undo the fasteners as having to crouch and almost working sideways, as in, crouched down but leaning over to one side. He said, "If you crouch down far enough, you’re not leaning very far. Otherwise you can stay more upright and lean over. It depends on whether your knees are stronger or your back’s stronger".[19] Mr Johnston's evidence was that the confined space of the flume meant that he had a choice of either squatting to operate the jackhammer or standing straight-legged but bent at the waist to do so. He chose to work in the squatting position to carry out this work and "crab-walked" around the space as he worked.[20] The nature of the workspace varies. Some are relatively open, and others are partly under the platform. The focus of attention is inside the flume and so operating the jackhammer was often done, at least partially, in a bent over or squatting position underneath the platform.
  1. [13]
    There is usually a build-up of "pregnant liquor scale" that needs to be jackhammered off before the new blind can be installed. Workers informally divide what tasks they do between themselves when carrying out tank movements. They stop jackhammering when they feel tired.[21] The time spent jackhammering on this occasion was not agreed between the parties. The Appellant contends that the workers typically spend 5 to 15 minutes jackhammering and the Respondent contends that workers generally spend around 20 minutes doing that task.[22] However, during the 12-hour shift in question, Mr Langanke and Ms Meyers spent less time jackhammering while Mr Johnston and Mr Graham spent more time jackhammering.[23]
  1. [14]
    Once the relevant area is cleaned of pregnant liquor scale, the replacement blind is then passed down into the flume to the worker who installs it. So too the locking bar is passed down to the worker who installs it and secures it all with the relevant fasteners.

The disputed mechanism of injury

  1. [15]
    Mr Johnston worked a 12 hour night shift between 8 and 9 March 2023 that went from 6:00 pm on 8 March 2023 to 6:00 am on 9 March 2023.[24] The Appellant contends that Mr Johnston took three rest breaks of 30 minutes at 9:00 pm, at 12:00 midnight, and at 3:00 am.[25] The Respondent contends that it is usual for employees to take breaks at those times, but that on that shift Mr Johnston only took two breaks – the one at 9:00 pm, and the one at 3:00 am.[26]
  1. [16]
    Mr Johnston carried out different functions on each flume on the night in question, including entering and exiting the flume pit and platforms numerous times as well as performing other work in the crouched and crab-walking positions. Mr Johnston estimated that for the second flume, he carried out the jackhammering work for 30 to 40 minutes,[27] which was not long before his claimed mechanism of injury. Mr Johnston says that at that point in time he felt "overall soreness" and fatigue and decided to go for a walk and get a drink.[28]
  1. [17]
    When returning from that walk, whilst walking up a slight incline and rounding a corner, Mr Johnston stated that the following incident occurred ('Incident'), during which he felt:

…a bit of a pop in my knee, and lost a bit of stability. Sort of stood there, gave it a bit of a shake and a stretch. Couldn’t feel, like, any crazy pain or that it had lost movement, stuff like that, so just kept going with my day or my night. We completed the tasks on the tank movements. Went back down in my classification area. Finished my work. Went home.[29]

  1. [18]
    Mr Johnston later described the Incident as:

So I’d walked down it. I’d turned, gone to a shed. I came back and as I’ve turned the corner, that’s when I’ve felt my knee sort of crack and let go a bit, and that’s where I’ve stopped.[30]

  1. [19]
    Mr Langanke, a co-worker on the same crew as Mr Johnston that night of 8 to 9 March 2023, gave evidence. Mr Langanke said that at the time of the Incident, Mr Johnston reported to Mr Langanke that his right knee had popped.[31] Mr Langanke described witnessing Mr Johnston's expressions and deduced thereby that the event described was painful and described Mr Johnston as "babying" his right knee.[32] Mr Langanke deduced that Mr Johnston appeared concerned that he should not put much weight on his right knee and seemed worried that he might pop it again.[33] Mr Langanke observed Mr Johnston to be more obviously limping at the start of the following shift than immediately after the Incident.[34]
  1. [20]
    Mr Graham, who was also on shift with Mr Johnston on 8 to 9 March 2023, was unable to recall when he was told about the Incident and provided no evidence of it.[35]
  1. [21]
    Another co-worker, Ms Myers, gave evidence that at the start of the following shift she observed Mr Johnston to be "in clear pain" and was limping.[36]
  1. [22]
    Importantly to the Appellant's case, after the Incident, Mr Johnston finished the work on that flume, which involved some more jackhammering and climbing in and out of the flume an estimated two more times.[37] He then carried out a blind replacement on another. Mr Johnston's evidence was that that second one required much less work. In Mr Johnston's own words, "It was a good one".[38] Mr Johnston's evidence was that he then finished off that shift by performing lighter duties associated with screen boxes that could simply be hosed out for the most part.[39]
  1. [23]
    Mr Johnston's evidence was that after he completed his shift he went straight home. He says that he did not attend any exercise training session or do anything else. He only went home, showered and went to bed.[40] Upon waking later in the day, Mr Johnston says that he found his right knee was swollen, painful and that he could not put much weight on it.[41] He attended work for the start of the night shift on 9 March 2023 and reported the injury to Mr Rowe soon after arriving.[42] It is not disputed that in the days after consulting a general practitioner who did not diagnose the injury, Mr Johnston underwent an MRI which revealed a bucket handle tear to the meniscus of the right knee.[43]

The reporting of the injury and claim history

  1. [24]
    Mr Johnston did not report the injury during the shift, but did so at 6:55 pm when he presented for work at the start of the following shift on 9 March 2023.[44] The injury report noted that the injury occurred during the previous shift at 11:00 pm, being described as a sprain or strain of the right knee that occurred while walking across top floor.[45] The report noted that the "knee cracked and wobbled. Came good finished shift ok. No real issues until after getting up to come to [the night shift]".[46] A further written statement was provided:

On the nightshift of 08/03/2023 during the task of taking H2 precip tank offline as I was walking basck [sic] up the precip row on top floor and felt what I felt as a minor crack/pop feeling in my right knee. At the moment of the crack/pop occurring I felt slight instability in my knee but it went away almost immediately and I was able to carry on with my routine taks [sic] without any further issues regarding my knee. Upon completion of the shift I returned home to bed. I found after taking the load off when I woke up my right knee had become inflamed; the movement was limited and weight bearing was an issue. Once I started to use the knee whilst getting ready I noticed there was a slight crunch/crack feeling accompanied by a sharp pain in the front and slightly on the inside of my knee and this continued with every step taken. Upon arrival to work I raised my concerns with my leader and was recommended to present to the medical centre for icing, incident report and evaluation.[47]

  1. [25]
    A field investigation report was created for this incident on 9 March 2023.[48] The Appellant contends that it was completed by Mr Johnston and his supervisor Mr Rowe.[49] The Respondent contends that Mr Johnston completed it on his own.[50] Nothing turns on that disagreement in my opinion. The report noted under the heading "What was the activity and what went wrong?" as follows:

On the nightshift of 08/03/2023 during the task of taking H2 precip tank offline as I was walking back up the precip row on top floor and felt what I felt was a minor crack/pop feeling in my right knee and some instability. [51]

  1. [26]
    And under the heading "Who was involved?" the report notes:

AP controlling levels and 2 other AP’s conducting the tank movements. Not part of task or in area at time of incident.[52]

  1. [27]
    Then, under "Following the incident what actions were taken?":

No action taken as knee regained stability almost instantly and no pain was felt, returned to normal tasks until shift changeover when returned home.

Following waking up for the next nightshift noticed some inflammation, could not rely on R/knee to weight bear and movement was restricted and a crunching/popping sensation constantly felt accompanied with pain in the front and inside of R/knee

Upon arrival for work the following shift, concerns raised with supervisor and presented to medical centre for evaluation.[53]

  1. [28]
    There is a disagreement between the parties over whether Mr Rowe told Mr Johnston to put anything in the report. The Appellant contends that Mr Johnston told Mr Rowe that he had injured himself "walking along" but that Mr Rowe did not tell Mr Johnston anything about how Mr Johnston should describe his injury.[54] The Respondent contends that Mr Johnston asked Mr Rowe what to put in the report, to which Mr Rowe replied that he should keep it short and that he did not need to write a novel.[55] However, nothing turns on this disagreement in my opinion.
  1. [29]
    On 10 March 2023, Dr Mina Davari issued a workers' compensation medical certificate. There was no formal diagnosis. The note most relevantly said, "Movement – He was walking work place that [sic] he lost stability of his knee and since then has pain and swelling in the right knee".[56]
  1. [30]
    On 22 March 2023, WorkCover rejected the claim for compensation. WorkCover's reasons included statements by Mr Johnston to WorkCover in two discussions, on 14 and 16 March 2023, which WorkCover described this way:

Walking along process floor and felt crack in knee, Just walking along the process areas of work, Felt a crack in my right knee, Steel plated pathway, Ona bit of an incline, you walk up the hill". WorkCover queried if at any moment you had twisted your knee or sustained a fall to which you replied "No". WorkCover also queried "Any activities you were doing before to hurt yourself? Bending squatting? No, and Yes reported next day as my knee stopped hurting - I just did my normal duties but the next day my knee was swollen so I went to medical centre. [57]

  1. [31]
    WorkCover rejected Mr Johnston's application for compensation on 22 March 2023, stating that employment was not a significant contributing factor to the injury.[58] Mr Johnston then sent two emails on 23 March 2023, the contents of which are as follows:

Just wanting to try and get a better understanding of why my claim was not approved. I am very new to this and was given an incident report myself to fill out and was told to fill out any information at that time when my knee but I don't have to make it a novel was exactly what I was told. We did not have a doctor on site and our site doctor does not or did not have a provider number so I was unable to see him for examination or any referrals is what I was told by the workplace nurse. I feel like I have been given some wrong information and guidance throughout this whole process. Is there anyone I can speak to about this as there are a lot of contributing factors as well through my shift that played a part in this injury. In reference to the minimal information on my certificate from the doctor, I believe that was because she can not [sic] make a proper evaluation without and scan, she did say to me that it is more than likely meniscal damage but I do not understand why she did not out [sic] that information on there…

I can not [sic] pinpoint exactly when it may have happen [sic] throughout the shift but my routine tests we're [sic] definitely a contributing factor as I have conducted these many times before. It is a regular occurrence for people to be sore and fatigued after this work especially when we do our tank swaps which involves removing blinds by hand that are quite heavy while couched [sic] down in between flumes. As stated by my employed [sic] about my breaks, they were not at the times stated. My first rest break was at 9pm until 9:30pm my second rest was further into the night after the crack/pop in my knee was felt as this was around 11pm. My second break was not until 1:30/2:00am and my next at 4am. As mentioned it is normal to be sore after this work as well as during and the fact I had never done an incident report before and was given the paper work and requested to fill it out myself has me concerned now as I do not think it was right. What I'm struggling to understand is that if I were a pedestrian or cyclist travelling to work on foot or bike and would make contact with a pot hole or roll my ankle or have an injury occur, this would be covered but in a process area half way through a shift with multiple contributing factors involved in the work throughout the night my knee has not been accepted as enough to meet the criteria? It could have very easily been aggravated earlier through out [sic] the shift and when travelling across top floor has been when it has been found. Again, it is expected to be a little sore or uncomfortable while doing these tasks.[59]

  1. [32]
    On 14 April 2023, Mr Johnston underwent an MRI on the right knee, with Dr Rod Larsen reporting on 17 April 2023 that there was a large bucket handle tear of the medial meniscus with a fragment displaced into the intercondylar notch, with further longitudinal horizontal tear of the body and posterior horn, a tiny knee joint effusion, and a small vertical radial tear of the body of the lateral meniscus.[60] Dr Davari referred Mr Johnston to specialist orthopaedic surgeon, Dr David Wheatley, with the diagnosis of  right knee injury and listing the mechanism of injury as "walking in the work place that feels [sic] pain and since then cannot have normal activities".[61] The Respondent contends that the referral letter also said:[62]

…He presents with sudden right knee pain, limping and restriction of activities… He already had h/o knee surgery 10 years ago, but since then does not have any problem. In examination there is tenderness over medial meniscus. MRI indicates medial meniscus tear…

  1. [33]
    Dr Wheatley then issued a workers' compensation medical certificate for Mr Johnston diagnosing him with a 'right knee injury' from 8 March 2023 with the listed mechanism of injury being "Lifting blinds at work –taking tank movements –knee clicked, lost stability".[63] Dr Wheatley wrote to Dr Davari on the same day saying:

Thanks very much for your referral of Aiden who sustained a twisting knee injury at work on the right side. He was down in some form of a ditch and was lifting heavy implements. He extricated himself from the ditch and felt something go and he presented to yourself with knee pain.[64]

  1. [34]
    On 8 May 2023, Mr Johnston applied for a review of WorkCover's decision and made submissions as to that application on 22 June 2023.[65] Then, on 17 July 2023, Dr Wheatley wrote to Dr Davari that:

As you know, he was down in a ditch and was lifting heavy implements. When he extricated himself from the ditch, he felt something go in his right knee and had immediate pain.[66]

Medical evidence

  1. [35]
    The medical evidence in this matter confirmed that a "bucket handle meniscal tear" resulted from a tear in the meniscus. Viewed from above, the meniscus is a C-shaped piece of cartilage inside the knee joint.[67] There are different ways that the meniscus can be torn. In layman's terms, a bucket handle tear of the meniscus is where a vertical tear around the base of the C-shape is long enough so that it becomes circumferential and a section becomes loose, but still attached at each end of the tear.[68] When that section becomes "displaced" from the rest of the meniscus it turns the C-shaped meniscus into something that resembles a bucket with the handle lifted away, with the torn section of meniscus being the 'handle' of the bucket.[69] This is the relevant part of an illustrative diagram that was received into evidence, as shown below in Figure 1:

Queensland Alumina Limited v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 182

Figure 1: Diagrams of a vertical meniscal tear (left) and a bucket handle meniscal tear (right) (Photo 1 of Document 2 of the bundle tendered as Exhibit #1).

  1. [36]
    Two orthopaedic surgeons gave evidence. Dr Cameron Cooke was called by the Appellant and Dr David Wheatley was called by the Respondent.
  1. [37]
    In summary, Dr Cooke's opinion was that it was highly unlikely that walking across a floor would result in a bucket handle meniscal tear and that Mr Johnston's stated mechanism of injury is not compatible with the pathology.[70] As the Respondent observed in its submissions, Dr Cooke's opinion was that a displaced bucket-handle tear was an acute injury which occurs secondary to a significant traumatic event to the knee; that it is a substantial tear, which is typically a sports injury or seen in trauma patients after a high-energy injury.[71] Dr Cooke opined that such an injury would make it unlikely that Mr Johnston could have gone on to finish his shift in the manner described due to pain, inflammation and a lack of mobility to the joint.[72] It was on that basis that Dr Cooke's opinion was that the description Mr Johnston gave was very unlikely to have been the mechanism of injury.
  1. [38]
    However, as the Respondent observes, Dr Cooke used the word "usually" in his report to describe how quickly the onset of symptoms like pain and immobility would be experienced in an injury like this. The Respondent noted that Dr Cooke conceded in cross examination that the word "typically" was perhaps more appropriate than "usually" because “in medicine nothing is 100 percent”.[73] Although making that concession, appropriately in my view, Dr Cooke maintained the opinion that it would be extremely unlikely that Mr Johnston's bucket handle tear injury occurred as Mr Johnston described it.[74] 
  1. [39]
    Dr Cooke was of the opinion that if Mr Johnston had experienced a displaced bucket handle tear at the time he felt his knee pop, he would have experienced restricted mobility in the knee caused by the displacement of the torn section of the meniscus, acute pain and swelling.[75] Dr Cooke's opinion was that that would have prevented Mr Johnston from working out the remainder of his shift in the manner described.[76]
  1. [40]
    When questioned by the Commission about whether a meniscal tear that becomes a bucket handle happens all at once or progressively, Dr Cooke said this:

So is a vertical tear effectively the precursor to a bucket handle tear?---It can be, is the answer. So you could have a vertical tear, and then – and again, it’s got to be, you know, a – a significant sort of bending, twisting injury to sustain that sort of tear. And then you could have a sec – secondary event where you again bend and twist, and then that bucket handle gets displaced.[77]

  1. [41]
    Then, when asked by the Commission about the symptoms of a vertical tear:

- - - with a vertical tear, so you don’t have the mechanical locking up?---No, because sometimes, that – that torn bit can still displace a little bit and cause pain. For – for example, if you see the – the transverse tear there on the one beside it, tho – those patients often present with painful crepitus with the knee, meaning when – if they twist on it, they feel, like, a intermittent sharp pain within it. So those sorts of symptoms, you’d also get with a vertical tear. So not that full-on inability to extend the knee, but – you know, symptoms of – we call it locking, which is like a grating within your knee joint.[78]

  1. [42]
    Dr Cooke was also of the opinion that Mr Johnston's history of meniscal tears did not predispose Mr Johnston to the type of meniscus injury he did suffer.[79]
  1. [43]
    Dr Wheatley opined that a bucket handle tear is more likely to occur as a result of a high energy injury such as whilst playing as sport like football. An impact or traumatic event is the more common and likely mechanism of injury.[80] Dr Wheatley's evidence clarified that one could experience an initial catch episode, which was not as painful as it would later become, and dust oneself off and carry on.[81] As an example, he cited netball players as players who continue playing after suffering such a meniscal tear.[82]
  1. [44]
    Dr Wheatley's evidence was that if the circumferential meniscal tear had become displaced to the point it became a bucket handle tear, then climbing a ladder and squatting would be very difficult and painful.[83] However, his evidence was that a meniscal tear, a "baseline tear", could occur and not be displaced, at least initially. Such an "undisplaced" tear would still allow a person with that tear to have "a good and reasonable function of their knee".[84] That can settle down and, at a later time, that baseline tear can become displaced.[85] Dr Wheatley's evidence was that something as simple as getting into bed or folding one's legs when sitting down could "flick" the torn section out, at which point it would become acute.[86] Dr Wheatley also put it this way:

‑‑‑Well, he – he could have sustained the injury, had the circumferential tear of that meniscus, it not be displaced, and then for it to evolve and be displaced over however many hours. I mean, so because the – the – bucket handle tears in – at the time of the scan or the time of the MRI it – it was displaced. Now, that can, for whatever reason, be, you know, throughout the injury or the course of injury for a patient, you know, that can be displaced and then undisplaced, and then displaced, and then flick in and out of the knee, causing acute discomfort, all that sort of stuff. So it is possible that he sustained the injury and – and – and not the displacement, and then that to evolve at – at a later time.[87]

Relevant law

  1. [45]
    Section 32 of the WC Act relevantly says:
  1. An "injury" is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury.
  1. However, employment need not be a contributing factor to the injury if section 34(2) or 35(2) applies.
  1. "Injury" includes the following—
  1. a disease contracted in the course of employment, whether at or away from the place of employment, if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the disease;
  1. an aggravation of the following, if the aggravation arises out of, or in the course of, employment and the employment is a significant contributing factor to the aggravation—
  1. a personal injury;
  1. a disease;
  1. a medical condition, if the condition becomes a personal injury or disease because of the aggravation;
  1. loss of hearing resulting in industrial deafness if the employment is a significant contributing factor to causing the loss of hearing;
  1. death from injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to causing the injury;
  1. death from a disease mentioned in paragraph (a), if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the disease;
  1. death from an aggravation mentioned in paragraph (b), if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the aggravation.
  1. For subsection (3)(b), to remove any doubt, it is declared that an aggravation mentioned in the provision is an injury only to the extent of the effects of the aggravation.
  1. [46]
    In Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), Industrial Commissioner Neate observed the basic principle in workers' compensation cases that where the appellant is an employer it is the appellant who carries the onus of proof.[88]
  1. [47]
    In Rimland v State of Queensland (Department of Communities, Disability Services and Seniors),[89] his Honour, Davis P, noted that "[as] part of the fact finding function of the QIRC, it is up to the Industrial Commissioner to determine what evidence she accepts or rejects, and what inferences she draws from evidence which she accepts".[90] Given that the Commission "is not bound by the rules of evidence", his Honour considered that it is therefore acceptable that the Commission "may receive any material which it considers reliable".[91]
  1. [48]
    In King v Workers' Compensation Regulator ('King'),[92] his Honour, O'Connor VP, noted that the Commission not being bound by the rules of evidence did not "excuse it from applying the general law".[93] His Honour also noted that the "rules of evidence should only be departed from in the clearest of circumstances and where the interests of justice require it to be done".[94]
  1. [49]
    In Self and Bishop v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service),[95] a Full Bench of this Commission expanded upon the nature of the rules of evidence in this Commission. The Full Bench noted that:

… Material that would not comply with the rules of admissibility may still only be relied upon if it is probative and relevant. The rules of evidence are at least a guide in determining what material is considered. Material can also only be relied upon if there is no legal impediment to it being relied upon…[96]

(citations omitted)

  1. [50]
    In Goldsmith v Sandilands,[97] his Honour, McHugh J, said of the term "relevance":

A fact is relevant to another fact when it is so related to that fact that, according to the ordinary course of events, either by itself or in connection with other facts, it proves or makes probable the past, present, or future existence or non-existence of the other fact.[98]

  1. [51]
    Whether evidence is relevant is not a question of degree, but rather a question of whether "it is relevant or it is not".[99] By contrast, probative value of evidence describes "the extent to which the evidence could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue".[100] In assessing how the contested evidence impacts the probability of a fact in issue, "the effect of the contested evidence [is to be] taken with other evidence either admitted by the time the controversial evidence is tendered, or to be called".[101] Furthermore, whether evidence is reliable depends on whether evidence is "trustworthy" and, as part of that analysis, whether it is credible.[102]
  1. [52]
    The recent decision of Leigh v State of Queensland (Department of Education) ('Leigh') is a matter where Industrial Commissioner O'Neill considered whether hearsay evidence was admissible in the Commission.[103] O'Neill IC noted that the Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence and procedure, and so can receive hearsay evidence.[104] However, any hearsay evidence received by the Commission must have sufficient reliability and 'rational probative force' before it can be relied upon.[105]

Summary of the arguments

The Appellant's arguments

  1. [53]
    The Appellant's claim is that the injury was not one that could have occurred during employment and that the employment was not a significant contributing factor to the injury pursuant to s 32(1) of the WCR Act. The Appellant relies heavily on Dr Cooke's evidence. The Appellant submits that Dr Cooke's evidence establishes that the pathology of the injury suffered by Mr Johnston is inconsistent with the symptomology described as experienced by Mr Johnston. Or in other words, whilst Mr Johnston did suffer a bucket handle meniscal tear on or around 8 and 9 March 2023, he could not reasonably have done so at work in the manner he claimed.
  1. [54]
    The Appellant first argues that a bucket handle tear makes it exceedingly difficult to continue carrying out the type of work that Mr Johnston carried out after the Incident. The Appellant relies on Dr Cooke's description of a bucket handle tear as an acute injury involving a substantial tear and occurring "secondary to a significant traumatic event to the knee", with it typically being a high energy injury. The Respondent points to Dr Cooke further articulating that a bucket handle tear occurs in the periphery of the meniscus where there is blood supply, meaning that a tear in the periphery causes immediate bleeding, rapid swelling, stiffness and pain. Dr Cooke's unequivocal evidence, according to the Appellant, was that pain, and a restricted range of motion from physical blockage in the range of motion of extending the knee, would occur straight away and that there would be swelling within hours.
  1. [55]
    The Appellant submits that Dr Wheatley agreed with many facets of Dr Cooke's evidence. Notably, Dr Wheatley agreed that a bucket handle tear occurred secondary to a significant traumatic event that incurs a large tear in the meniscus that is often sudden and overwhelming and that causes bleeding. The Appellant points out that Dr Wheatley also agreed that a displaced bucket handle tear is likely very painful and would cause a restricted range of motion, so much so that a person with the injury would have difficulty climbing ladders and squatting. Dr Wheatley also agreed, the Respondent notes, that it would be more likely than not to be very difficult to continue working a physical job after sustaining this kind of injury.
  1. [56]
    The Appellant contrasts the almost disabling effect of a bucket handle meniscal tear with the relative ease with which Mr Johnston continued to carry out work after purportedly suffering the bucket handle meniscal tear. The Appellant notes that Mr Johnston's evidence was that he continued to work for a further 7 hours carrying out tank movements with no pain or loss of range of motion and minimal fatigue and soreness.
  1. [57]
    The Appellant also casts doubt on Mr Johnston's description of the mechanism of the injury. The Appellant notes that Mr Johnston has repeatedly said that he suffered the injury when he felt his knee 'pop' and lose stability while walking up a slight incline on a 'process row'. The Appellant argues that the medical evidence proves that the bucket handle tear Mr Johnston suffered could not have occurred as Mr Johnston described it, at least to the requisite standard of the balance of probabilities.
  1. [58]
    The Appellant also submits that the evidence of Mr Langanke should be given little weight. The Appellant says that Mr Langanke gave evidence of things that Mr Johnston said, but that Mr Johnston did not give evidence of having said those same things to Mr Langanke. The Appellant also contends that Mr Langanke made observations about Mr Johnston that no other witness gave evidence about.
  1. [59]
    The Appellant submits, by contrast, that the evidence of Ms Myers should be preferred. The Appellant says that this preference is based on Ms Myers having not observed anything different about Mr Johnston at the end of the shift, aside from Mr Johnston being exhausted.

The Respondent's arguments

  1. [60]
    The Respondent contends that there is no basis to reject Mr Johnston's account. The Respondent submits that Mr Johnston's colleagues who were working with him provide evidence that is consistent with Mr Johnston's account of the shift where he says he incurred an injury. The Respondent also submits that Mr Johnston's credit was not in issue, that he gave his evidence honestly, and that he was a witness of truth.
  1. [61]
    The Respondent argues that the Dr Wheatley's conclusions should be preferred over Dr Cooke's. In support of this argument, the Respondent puts forward what is, in my view, a critical point: Dr Cooke's conclusion was based on the incorrect assumption that Mr Johnston's meniscus both tore and displaced all at once. The Respondent posits that Dr Cooke did not consider the possibility that the meniscus became displaced sometime well after it was torn. The Respondent submits that Dr Wheatley's evidence did consider that possibility and so his evidence should be preferred. The Respondent submits Dr Wheatley's evidence was that Mr Johnston could have continued to work had the meniscus torn but then later, sometime after working, become displaced. Dr Wheatley's evidence was that the displacement of the meniscus could have occurred doing something as innocuous as getting into bed[106]. The Respondent submits that, in light of Dr Wheatley's evidence, a bucket handle meniscus tear occurred consistently with the evidence of Mr Johnston's symptoms and, importantly, occurred during the shift between 8 and 9 March 2023.

Consideration

  1. [62]
    In making findings of fact, I am of the view that the Commission must assess the evidence in the following way. The Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence and may determine what evidence it accepts.[107] The Commission also must not depart from the rules of evidence except in the clearest of cases where the interests of justice require doing so.[108] The principles that guide the Commission through the rules of evidence are relevance, probity and reliability.[109] Relevance is a binary decision; the evidence either does or does not tend to prove a fact.[110] Probity, or the probative value of evidence, is the extent to which relevant evidence does prove a fact in light of the entirety of the evidence.[111] Reliability describes the extent to which the evidence is trustworthy.[112]

Findings on the nature of the work

  1. [63]
    There was disagreement between the parties on several aspects of the nature of the work. The number of breaks Mr Johnston had, how much flumes weighed, how long the workers jackhammered for on each occasion, and how the workers described the flumes, were all issues raised by the parties. In the hearing, too, there was a great deal of probing about who did what and for how long during tank movements. But what was not in dispute, and what is really the relevant part of the nature of the work to this matter, is that Mr Johnston was carrying out physically onerous work right up until, while taking a short walk, he first noticed the onset of some symptoms. That was, in his words, when he felt a "pop" in his knee and experienced some instability. On the evidence, I find that Mr Johnston was climbing ladders in and out of cramped working areas, crouching and "crab walking" on slippery surfaces whilst jackhammering with his knee in contorted positions. He was also engaged in manoeuvring and lifting in an out of the flume pits the blinds, which weighed somewhere between 40 and 50 kg, I accept. It is undoubtedly relevant and of probative value that Mr Johnston undertook physically onerous work.

Findings on the medical evidence

  1. [64]
    I turn now to the medical evidence. It is not in dispute that it was not until Mr Johnston woke up to ready himself for the next shift that he experienced the acute pain, swelling and limitation of knee movement that were typical of the displacement of a bucket handle meniscus tear. However, whether the symptomology of a bucket handle meniscus tear was consistent with the evidence of Mr Johnston's symptoms during the shift between 8 and 9 March 2023 was contested.
  1. [65]
    Dr Cooke's evidence seems to me to have initially been largely focused on the presumption that a displaced bucket handle tear is what Mr Johnston experienced when he claimed to have felt a pop and some instability after turning whilst walking up a slight incline. Dr Cooke's evidence was that mechanism of injury was extremely unlikely. That was due to the mechanics of what Mr Johnston was doing at the time. It was simply not enough of a high impact event where one might typically see a torn meniscus that becomes displaced to create a bucket handle tear all at once. Dr Cooke's evidence was that, with a displaced bucket handle tear, the patient would experience immediate pain and swelling as well as a mechanical limitation of movement of the knee. Dr Cooke said that it was not likely that Mr Johnston experienced such a tear in this case given the evidence that Mr Johnston completed his shift after he felt the pop and did not experience the usual accompanying pain, swelling and limited knee movement.
  1. [66]
    However, Dr Cooke did acknowledge that a person could experience a vertical tear of the meniscus through a "significant sort of bending, twisting injury" and that the torn segment does not initially become displaced. That person could then experience a secondary event where that "bucket handle" section of the torn meniscus becomes displaced. Dr Cooke also gave evidence that with a vertical meniscal tear which had not become displaced the patient would experience some pain and swelling but not the kind of "locking up" of the knee that one experiences once the torn section becomes displaced and ends up interfering with the movement of the joint.
  1. [67]
    Dr Wheatley's evidence was that an initial tear of the meniscus could occur during Mr Johnston's shift as a result of Mr Johnston's work. In Dr Wheatley's opinion, if Mr Johnston had experienced a meniscal tear during that shift, he would have experienced some degree of tolerable discomfort as a result. I accept Dr Wheatley's evidence that Mr Johnston could easily have sustained a circumferential tear of the meniscus and then later, after his shift, displaced the torn section of the meniscus. Such torn meniscal sections can, in Dr Wheatley's opinion, become displaced and then fall back into their original position, and then "flick out" again. It is when the torn section flicks out into the displaced position that acute pain and mobility issues are experienced. Dr Wheatley confirmed that such a baseline tear occurring during Mr Johnston's shift could settle down but is unpredictable. He deposed that if the torn section was "undisplaced" the patient would not experience mechanical difficulties.  That torn section could, however, flick out with a movement as innocuous as getting into bed in Dr Wheatley's opinion.
  1. [68]
    The alternative ground of whether Mr Johnston's injury was an exacerbation of any previous injury has not been pressed by the Appellant. And in any, case Dr Cooke's evidence seemed to rule it out. Dr Cooke deposed that Mr Johnston’s history of meniscal injuries did not predispose him to a vertical tear or a bucket handle tear.
  1. [69]
    The relevance of both medical witnesses is self-evident. There is also nothing to suggest these witnesses were unreliable. However, I consider that Dr Wheatley's evidence is of more probative value because he considered in greater depth than Dr Cooke all the probable ways in which a bucket handle meniscus tear might eventuate and present itself. It is on that basis that I prefer Dr Wheatley's evidence.

Findings on the lay witness evidence.

  1. [70]
    I found Mr Johnston to be a reliable witness of truth and not one to embellish. He made appropriate concessions, and his version of events is supported by both the medical evidence and the evidence provided by his colleagues.
  1. [71]
    The Appellant did not object to Mr Langanke's evidence but did in their submissions seek to cast doubt on the probative value and reliability of his evidence. I have set out those submissions above, but I reject the submission that Mr Langanke's evidence was not of probative value or reliable for the following reasons. The evidence was clearly relevant and was able to be tested, not only by cross-examination of Mr Langanke but also as against the conveyer of that information, Mr Johnston. The evidence was also reliable, despite concerns about Mr Langanke's recall, given how soon after the event in question Mr Johnston conveyed the statement to Mr Langanke. It is also of significant probative value, despite concerns of Mr Johnston not giving evidence of saying the things that Mr Langanke said Mr Johnston said. That is because the hearsay evidence corroborates what Mr Langanke witnessed - Mr Johnston's limping and favouring of his right leg at the time. It also corroborates Mr Johnston's evidence itself. As to the submission about no other witness giving evidence about this exchange between Mr Langanke and Mr Johnston, I am not satisfied that the event described by both Mr Johnston and Mr Langanke was so dramatic and obvious that it renders unreliable their account just because no other person on shift saw this exchange.
  1. [72]
    No concerns were raised about the other witnesses, and I found no fault with their evidence. I find that all the other lay witnesses were reliable witnesses.

Findings on whether there was an injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury

  1. [73]
    This matter turns on whether there was an injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury. I find that there was such an injury for the following reasons.
  1. [74]
    I find that the medical evidence posits two ways by which Mr Johnston could have suffered a bucket handle meniscus tear. He could have torn his meniscus and then displaced the tear either instantly or later on. If the tear was displaced instantly, Mr Johnston would unlikely have been able to continue working. If the tear was displaced later on, Mr Johnston could have continued working after the initial baseline tear until the tear displaced, albeit with some discomfort.
  1. [75]
    On the facts as I find them, I consider that the following account of events is the most probable. On the shift of 8 and 9 March 2023 Mr Johnston carried out a series of tank movements. He then went for a walk and felt a 'pop' while walking up and turning on a slight incline. Upon feeling this pop, he felt some momentary instability. He then continued working for some 7 hours, carrying out light duties, while favouring the knee that he felt 'pop'. That was shortly after Mr Johnston engaged in a lengthy session of getting in and out of a flume pit, jackhammering in a crouched position whilst "crab-walking", and manoeuvring and lifting blinds weighing 40 to 50 kg in and out of the pit. He complained to one of his colleagues and moved carefully after the initial pop was noticed. After his shift, he went home, showered, and went to bed. He woke up the next morning with a swollen, painful and immobile leg. He reported that injury the next morning and soon afterwards was diagnosed with having a bucket handle meniscus tear.
  1. [76]
    I find it improbable that Mr Johnston tore and displaced his meniscus all at once during the shift on 8 and 9 March 2023, as he would have been very unlikely to be able to work the rest of that shift if so. It is also improbable on the evidence that Mr Johnston tore and displaced his meniscus all at once after the shift between 8 and 9 March 2023, because there is no evidence that Mr Johnston partook in any kind of high-energy energy activity that is required for the simultaneous tearing and displacement of the meniscus that he experienced.
  1. [77]
    The only real conclusion that I can draw from the evidence is that Mr Johnston tore his meniscus during his shift between 8 and 9 March 2023 and then the torn segment of the meniscus displaced sometime after finishing work but before the next shift on 9 March 2023. The evidence proves that Mr Johnston was able to work after experiencing the 'pop', albeit with some pain, and then later had considerable pain and immobility after waking up the next day. Such symptoms are consistent with the medical evidence before me. That is, that a bucket handle meniscus tear, where the meniscus initially tears but is not displaced, causing mild pain with minimal effect on mobility at the time, only causes considerable pain and immobility once it later becomes displaced through some subsequent, and possibly innocuous, event.

Conclusion

  1. [78]
    Accordingly, I find that Mr Johnston's injury was caused by the work he was carrying out on 8 and 9 March 2023. I am therefore satisfied that the injury sustained constituted an injury within the meaning of that term as it appears in s 32 of the WRC Act. For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that Mr Johnston's claim is one for compensation. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  1. The appeal is dismissed.
  1. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 7 July 2023 is confirmed.
  1. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's cost of and incidental to the appeal on an agreed basis, and if no agreement can be reached, the parties are to be heard on costs.

Footnotes

[1] Appeal Notice filed on 4 August 2023, page 3, paragraph 1 ('Appeal Notice').

[2] Ibid page 3, paragraph 2.

[3] Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions paragraph 1(a) ('ASOFC'); Respondent's statement of facts and contentions paragraph 4 ('RSOFC').

[4] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 2(a); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 6.

[5] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 2(b)-(c); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 6.

[6] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 2(d); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 6.

[7] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 2(e)-(g); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 6.

[8] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(d); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 9.

[9] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(f); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 9.

[10] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(e); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 9.

[11] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(g)-(h); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 9.

[12] T 1-22 to T 1-29; T 1-39 to T 1-49; T 1-53 to T 1-58; T 1-60 to T 1-68; T 2-5 to T 2-9 to T 2-18; T 2-25 to T 2-27.

[13] Photo 7 of Document 17 of the bundle tendered as Exhibit #1.

[14] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(j).

[15] RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 10.

[16] T 2-15, l 13; T 2-15, l 8.

[17] T 1-24, l 42.

[18] T 2-14, l 44; T 2–26, ll 22-29.

[19] T 1-36, ll 15-17.

[20] T 2-26, ll 11-16.

[21] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(k); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 11.

[22] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(k); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 11.

[23] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(l); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 12.

[24] ASOFC (n 3) paragraphs 3(a)-(b); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 7.

[25] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(c).

[26] RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 8.

[27] T 2-7, ll 26-27.

[28] T 2-9, ll 44-48; T 2-10, ll 18-20.

[29] T 2-10, ll 20-25.

[30] T 2-11, ll 20-22.

[31] T  1-42, ll 25-27; T 1-44, ll 11-21; T 1-47, ll 31-36.

[32] T 1-44, ll 23-45; T 1-45, ll 1-2, 18-19; T 1-46, ll 1-4.

[33] T 1-45, ll 11-12, 25-28, ll 39-48.

[34] T 1-46, ll 6-28.

[35] T 1-56, l 8.

[36] T 1-65, ll 24-37.

[37] T 2-10, ll 22-25; T 2-17, ll 13-33.

[38] T 2-17, ll 24-33.

[39] T 2-10, ll 40-41; T 2-18, ll 6-20.

[40] T 2-11, ll 36-37; T 2-26, ll 44-50.

[41] T 2-11, ll 37-39.

[42] T 2-11, ll 39-42; T 2-19, ll 4-9.

[43] ASOFC (n 3) paragraphs 3(u), 5(c); RSOFC (n 3) paragraphs 18, 20.

[44] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(o)-(p); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 14.

[45] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(p); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 14.

[46] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(p); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 14.

[47] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(q); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 14.

[48] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(r); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 15.

[49] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(r).

[50] RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 15.

[51] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(r); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 15.

[52] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(r); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 15.

[53] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(r); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 15.

[54] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(s).

[55] RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 16.

[56] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 3(u); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 18.

[57] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 4(a)-(b); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 19.

[58] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 4(a)-(b); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 19.

[59] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 5(a)-(b); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 20.

[60] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 5(c); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 20.

[61] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 5(d); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 21.

[62] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 5(d)); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 21.

[63] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 5(e); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 22.

[64] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 5(f); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 22.

[65] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 5(g)-(h); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 22.

[66] ASOFC (n 3) paragraph 5(i); RSOFC (n 3) paragraph 22.

[67] T 1-7, ll 10-13.

[68] T 1-7, ll 38-48; T 1-8, ll 1-8.

[69] T 1-8, ll 5-7; T 2-36, ll 22-24; Photo 1 of Document 2 of the bundle tendered as Exhibit #1.

[70] T 1-10, ll 29-46; T 1-11, ll 1-8; T 1-13, ll 41-46; T 1-14, ll 19-26; T 1-15, 39-47; T 1-16, ll 28-47; T 1-17, ll 7-11.

[71] T 1-10, ll 29-42; T 1-11, ll 3-16.

[72] T 1-10, ll 39-41; T 1-13, ll 13-31.

[73] T 1-12 ll 34-47; T 1-13 l 1; T 1-13 ll 32-33.

[74] T 1-15, ll 39-47; T 1-16, ll 1-8.

[75] T 1-9, ll 1-16; T 1-13, ll 39-46; T 1-14, ll 19-26; T 1-16, ll 28-35; T 1-17, ll 7-11.

[76] T 1-14, ll 13-15.

[77] T 1-17, ll 39-44.

[78] T 1-18, ll 44-47; T 1-19, ll 1-6.

[79] T 1-18, ll 10-14.

[80] T 2-33, ll 26-45; T 2-40, ll 37-39.

[81] T 2-42, ll 5-48.

[82] T 2-42, ll 21-24.

[83] T 2-35, ll 13-39.

[84] T 2-35, ll 41-46.

[85] T 2-41, ll 4-43.

[86] T 2-41, ll 13-23.

[87] T 2-32, ll 33-41.

[88] [2015] QIRC 125, citing SPE Pty Ltd AND Q-COMP and Gary Clifford Fuller [2010] QIRComm 118, [10] (Hall P); Toll Holdings Limited AND Q-COMP [2011] QIRComm 133, [3]-[4]; Leighton Contractors Pty Limited AND Q-COMP [2011] QIRComm 127, [6]; QR Limited AND Q-COMP [2011] QIRComm 102, [4]-[5].

[89] [2022] ICQ 9 ('Rimland').

[90] Ibid [31].

[91] Ibid.

[92] (2019) 290 IR 380 ('King').

[93] Ibid [16].

[94] Ibid [25].

[95] [2024] QIRC 271 ('Self and Bishop').

[96] Self and Bishop (n 95) [71], citing R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228, 256, Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390, [17].

[97] (2002) 190 ALR 370 ('Goldsmith').

[98] Ibid [31].

[99] Smith v R (2001) 206 CLR 650, [6] ('Smith').

[100] IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300, [44] ('IMM').

[101] Evans v The Queen (2007) 235 CLR 52, [177] ('Evans').

[102] Ibid [82].

[103] [2025] QIRC 023, [123]-[129] ('Leigh').

[104] Ibid [123], citing the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 531(2) ('IR Act').

[105] Ibid [124]-[125], [127]-[128], citing Polizzi v Commissioner of Police (No. 2) [2017] WASC 166, Gardiner v Land Agents Board (1976) 12 SASR 458, 474, Poochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 64, 256-257.

[106] T 2-41, ll 18-20.

[107] IR Act (n 104) s 531, Rimland (n 89) [31].

[108] King (n 92) [16], [25].

[109] Self and Bishop (n 95) [71]; Rimland (n 89) [31]; Leigh (n 103) [123]-[125].

[110] Goldsmith (n 97) [31]; Smith (n 99) [6].

[111] IMM (n 100) [44]; Evans (n 101) [177].

[112] Evans (n 101) [82].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland Alumina Limited v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland Alumina Limited v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 182

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Pratt IC

  • Date:

    17 Jul 2025

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
Gardiner v Land Agents Board (1976) 12 SASR 458
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1976) 12 SASR 458
Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood [2015] QIRC 125
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QIRC 125
Cite 2 - [2015] QIRC 125
Goldsmith v Sandilands (2002) 190 ALR 370
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2002) 190 ALR 370
IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2016) 257 CLR 300
King v Workers' Compensation Regulator (2019) 290 IR 380
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2019) 290 IR 380
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2010) 241 CLR 390
Leigh v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2025] QIRC 23
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2025] QIRC 23
Polizzi v Commissioner of Police (No. 2) [2017] WASC 166
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] WASC 166
R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal and Anor; Ex Parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1933) 50 CLR 228
Re Pochi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 64
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1979] AATA 64
Rimland v State of Queensland (Department of Communities, Disability Services and Seniors) [2022] ICQ 9
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] ICQ 9
Self and Bishop v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2024] QIRC 271
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QIRC 271
Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 206 CLR 650

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.