Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Miller [2013] QIRC 178

CITATION: Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) AND Raymond Miller (WC/2013/15) - Decision <http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au> QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1999 - s. 331(b) - decisions generally Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 - s. 45 (3) (a) - failure to attend or to comply with directions order Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - s. 550 - appeal to commission Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) AND Raymond Miller (WC/2013/15) INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER KNIGHT 22 November 2013 DECISION [1] The substantive matter is an appeal by Mr Raymond Miller (the "Appellant" / "Mr Miller") against a decision of the Review Unit of Q-COMP dated 7 January 2013. The hearing of this appeal was scheduled for three days from 25 to 27 September 2013. There was no appearance for the Appellant on the third and final day of the scheduled hearing. At 9:52 a.m. on Friday 27 September 2013, the Appellant sent a facsimile to the Industrial Registry stating that he would be unable to attend the hearing. The Respondent had previously indicated it intended to call its last three witnesses on Friday 27 September 2013. [2] Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (the "Regulator" / the "Respondent") has subsequently made an application to have this appeal dismissed pursuant to s. 331 of the Industrial Relations 1999. [3] The Appellant's Notice of Appeal was filed in the Industrial Registry on 15 January 2013. The history of the appeal is set out below. [4] Since the part hearing of the substantive matter, the Act has been amended with Q-COMP being abolished and replaced with Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator). This decision will reflect the new name. Appeal Background [5] The appeal was first listed for a call over hearing before Vice President Linnane on 30 January 2013 with the objective of issuing directions for the conduct of the appeal. [6] The appeal was listed again for mention before Vice President Linnane on 3 May 2013 where the Regulator raised concerns about Mr Miller's failure to comply with the directions in so far as they related to providing the Regulator with a list of documents relevant to the matter, and also as a consequence of correspondence from the Regulator dated 30 April 2013 in relation to a request to set aside an Attendance Notice to Produce on the basis the documents were subject to privilege. [7] During the mention Vice President Linnane took some time explaining elements of both the directions and hearing process, at one point reminding Mr Miller of the consequences of not complying with directions and to also be careful with this choice of words; when she said: "THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay. Now, all I'm warning you is you need to comply with the directions because the matter can be struck out for failure to comply. That's why I've got this now, because had it gone on for a week or two you may have had an application from Q-Comp to strike it out and you would be sitting here trying to defend that. So you need to comply with the - and you need to read your directions, and read them thoroughly..." (D1, P7, L45). And later, "THE VICE PRESIDENT: Other actions you’re taking? APPELLANT: Yeah, against - against their witnesses. THE VICE PRESIDENT: You don't even know their witnesses, do you? APPELLANT: I know who their witnesses are. THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Miller, you've got to be careful because I think that's a threat. APPELLANT: No, no, no, it's not a threat. I said I knew who their witnesses are. THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I - yeah. No, you said you're taking action against their witnesses. That is a threat. APPELLANT: Yeah, it's in court - a court action, I mean. Court action. THE VICE PRESIDENT: You just better be careful with the words you use, very careful, because if those people get a copy of this transcript, which they're entitled to get…" (D1, P8, L10-30). -- 1 of 9 -- 2 [8] The appeal was listed once more for mention before Vice President Linnane on 2 September 2013 with the objective of confirming the witnesses to be called by the parties ahead of the hearing dates set for 25-27 September 2013. [9] On 16 September the matter was allocated to me for hearing. [10] On 25 September 2013, both Mr Miller and Q-COMP attended the Commission and the hearing commenced in accordance with the prescribed date contained in the Directions notice. [11] Given Mr Miller was unrepresented I spent some time on both the 25th of September (Day 1) and the 26 th of September (Day 2) explaining the Appeal process and setting out some ground rules in relation to my expectations around the general behaviour and conduct of the parties during the proceedings. [12] On more than six occasions during the course of Day 1 of the hearing it was necessary to temporarily cease the proceedings to reinforce my expectations around the behaviour and the general conduct of parties in response to Mr Miller's behaviour, particularly in relation to his engagement with Counsel for the Respondent which involved yelling and aggressive body language. On a number of occasions it was also necessary to formally adjourn the proceedings to allow Mr Miller to cool down and check his temper. [13] The proceedings were interrupted or adjourned on seven more occasions during Day 2 to the extent it was necessary for me to make the following comments to Mr Miller at the conclusion of the Day 2 proceedings: "COMMISSIONER: But tomorrow, just let me make it very clear, we cannot have a repeat of what transpired earlier this morning in relation to the engagement between yourself and Mr O’Neill. We want it to run smoothly and I know - again, I reinforce this, I understand your frustration with the circumstances that have occurred and the way things have played out but when we run matters in the Commission, whether you're self-represented or you're represented by somebody else, we have a certain standard that we try to adhere to and it doesn't include swearing and it involves treating each other with a degree of respect. So, back to the ground rules tomorrow, we'll continue on insofar as hearing from the last of Q-COMP's witnesses, Mr and Mrs Blackband and then after that we can set down some times for written submissions. So you'll have a lot of opportunity to go through the transcripts and review a lot of the materials that have been submitted and put some arguments to the Commission around a lot of that information that's been provided." (D1, P102, L25-40). [14] On the same day, Mr O'Neil Counsel for the Regulator, in response to a direct threat from Mr Miller, forewarned of the possibility the Respondent would make an application to strike out the application in response to the following outburst: "…APPLICANT: And if he persists, I’ll spit in his face (my emphasis). COMMISSIONER: Mr Miller- - - APPLICANT: Because I'll tell you what- - - COMMISSIONER: Mr Miller- - - APPLICANT: - - - I still haven't got over it. COMMISSIONER: Can we go back to our ground rules? We need to go back to our ground rules. MR O'NEILL: That's actually a threat. APPLICANT: It's not a threat. MR O'NEILL: That was a threat that we have just heard on open transcript and- - - APPLICANT: Then don't talk about my wife or my family. COMMISSIONER: Mr Miller- - - APPLICANT: Because you're not good enough to do it. COMMISSIONER: Mr Miller, what we're going to do is we are just going to adjourn for five minutes and you - and we're going to get you to settle down, okay? We - we have already had a discussion about this, swearing, threatening- - - APPLICANT: I am not threatening, I'm just telling him. COMMISSIONER: Okay, well the - the - the extent of your anger is - and the manner in which you are speaking to Mr O'Neill and you're speaking in the Commission is just not acceptable." (D2, P40, L10 - P41, L5). [15] On Day 3 (Friday 27 September 2013) the Appellant sent a brief facsimile to the Industrial Registry eight minutes prior to the listed commencement time advising he would not be attending the hearing for health reasons. There was no detail contained in the fax in relation to the nature of the health issue or Mr Miller's intentions in relation to proceeding with his appeal. [16] A copy of this facsimile was provided to the Respondent by my Associate. -- 2 of 9 -- 3 [17] The proceedings commenced in the absence of the Appellant in order to deal with the situation on record, as stated below: " COMMISSIONER: Now, the fax, as you probably are aware, was quite brief and, unfortunately, didn't provide much detail in relation to the health condition and/or whether or not Mr Miller intends to proceed with the matter, which, in some respects, is somewhat relevant, in light of some of the comments that have been made by Mr Miller during the course of these proceedings, so I asked my associate to contact Mr Miller on the numbers that were provided on that document - the fax which was sent through. My associate advises that the landline number provided is a fax only, and that the mobile number went unanswered and went - there was no voicemail on which to leave a message, so I then asked my associate to send an email to Mr Miller on the email address that's been provided. However, my associate's received an undeliverable email response. Obviously, the purpose of making contact was to determine how Mr Miller wished to proceed, but I am conscious of the fact that the fax highlighted health issues. He hasn't indicated that he wishes to withdraw from the proceedings." (D3, P2, L10-25). [18] Counsel for the Regulator confirmed it would not be seeking to have the matter struck out, nor apply for Costs, at this point in time, but that it would be reserving its right to do so should Mr Miller not provide the appropriate medical evidence to support his absence and request for adjournment. [19] On the afternoon of Friday 27 September, the Industrial Registrar sent a letter to the Appellant requesting further details in relation to his absence including: "… a) the nature of your illness; b) confirmation that the seriousness of your illness prevented you from appearing today and cross-examining the three remaining witnesses for the Respondent; and c) the likely timeframe that you will be fit to resume in these proceedings…". [20] When no response was received by the registry in the following week, my Associate attempted to contact Mr Miller at approximately 12:40 p.m. on Wednesday 2 October 2013 using the phone number listed on correspondence the Appellant had provided to the Commission, but was unsuccessful. An alternative email address for the Appellant was discovered, and a scanned copy of the letter dated 27 September 2013 and signed by the Industrial Registrar was forwarded to the Appellant, requesting his urgent response. [21] On Wednesday 2 October 2013, the Appellant sent a facsimile to the Industrial Registry which contained a three- page submission detailing his dissatisfaction with the conduct of the proceedings on 25 and 26 September 2013, with particular mention of the line of questioning taken by Counsel for Q-COMP. Mr Miller's submissions did not provide any response to the Registrar's questions around the nature of Mr Miller's illness or when he would be fit to resume the proceedings other than: "… 9. I will be advising the Commission in due course as to when I am well enough to recommence the hearing…". [22] A file note retained by my Associate confirms she attempted to telephone Mr Miller again at approximately 2:45p.m. on Wednesday 2 October 2013 and was successful. [23] During the call, my Associate acknowledged receipt of the Appellant's three-page submission, but advised submissions in relation to the substantive matter were not required at this stage of the process, particularly given a number of the Regulator's witnesses were yet to give evidence. [24] During the conversation, my Associate confirmed the Appellant was required to respond to the contents of the Industrial Registrar's letter dated 27 September 2013 before the Commission could continue with the matter. [25] When Mr Miller was asked to confirm if he had received the letter from the Industrial Registrar which was posted on 27 September 2013 and subsequently emailed to him on 2 October 2013, his responses to my Associate were evasive and unclear. [26] When requested by my Associate to confirm his contact details to ensure he was easily contactable and all future correspondence was sent to the correct address, the Appellant was reluctant to provide those details. [27] My Associate altered her approach in order to secure the correct details by attempting to read out details of Mr Miller's current address and email contacts as they were currently recorded on the Commission file, over the phone. -- 3 of 9 -- 4 [28] The file note retained by my Associate indicates Mr Miller refused to co-operate and confirm his contact details. Mr Miller terminated the conversation by stating he wasn't "going to take anymore of the QIRC crap" and hanging up the phone. [29] On 3 October 2013, the Regulator advised the Commission in writing it would not be responding to Mr Miller's submissions in relation to the substantive matter and the proceedings more generally, but instead would wait to receive the medical evidence from the Appellant to support the adjournment of the hearing on 27 September 2013. [30] In the same correspondence the Regulator reserved its right to apply to strike the matter out pursuant to s. 331 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 should that evidence not be forthcoming. [31] On 3 October 2013, the Industrial Registrar wrote to the Appellant again. This correspondence was posted to the Appellant's home address, as well as faxed and emailed to the contact details recorded on the Appellant's file. Details of that correspondence are as follows: "3 October 2013 Mr Raymond Miller 30 Adam Street Cleveland QLD 4163 Dear Mr Miller, Re: Raymond Miller v Q-COMP [Matter Number WC/2013/15] Receipt is acknowledged of your written submissions dated 2 October 2013 faxed to the Industrial Registry on the same day. As you are aware, at approximately 10:00a.m. on Friday 27 September 2013, you advised the Registry by fax that you would not be attending the Commission due to ill-health. Due to the inability to contact you either by phone or email on that day, the Registry mailed a letter to your home address requesting further details in relation to your ill-health and inability to attend as well as an indication as to the likely timeframe within which you will be fit to resume your participation in these proceedings. However, I note you have not yet responded to that correspondence of 27 September 2013 regarding your non-attendance at the Commission for the final day of the hearing. I again reiterate the requirement for you to provide the information requested in the letter of 27 September 2013. For your benefit I have set out those details below: You are required to provide a medical report from your General Practitioner explaining your absence today. Specifically, the Commission requires the following information from your doctor: a) the nature of your illness; b) confirmation that the seriousness of your illness prevented you from appearing today and cross- examining the three remaining witnesses for the Respondent; and c) the likely timeframe that you will be fit to resume in these proceedings. You are required to provide the above information by Tuesday 8 October 2013. Alternatively, if you no longer wish to pursue your application please advise the Registry and Q-COMP, accordingly. Yours sincerely, G D Savill Industrial Registrar cc: Sacha O'Neill, Q-COMP Appeals Officer". -- 4 of 9 -- 5 [32] On 3 October 2013 by way of facsimile sent to the Registry at 3:41 p.m. the Appellant referred to his previous correspondence of 2 October 2013 advising he did not attend the hearing due to an asthma attack that had occurred on the evening of 26 September 2013. [33] Of relevance in the second piece of correspondence from the Appellant is the last paragraph, which states: "Furthermore, in relation to the letter from QIRC dated 3 October, 2013 with regards the reason why I did not attend the hearing on 27 September 2013, was because I had an asthma attack on the night of 26 September 2013. I attended the doctor's surgery on 27 September, 2013, and I am attending the doctor's surgery again today to have a follow up consultation with regards my health issues which were caused by my employment by Mrs Janet Larsen. I will be providing a medical certificate to verify this.". [34] On 4 October 2013 the Appellant sent a facsimile to the Registry with an attached a medical certificate signed by Dr Brian Alan Chua of Cleveland Central Medical Centre dated 3 October 2013, certifying: "...Mr Raymond Miller has a medical condition and will be unfit for work from 27/09/2013 to 27/09/2013 inclusive.". In the final paragraph of his fax (3 October 2012) to the Commission Mr Miller advised: "... the description of my illness will be forwarded to you on Wednesday, 9 October, 2013, after I had [sic] further chest x-rays, and the doctor does his examinations to ascertain my condition caused by contaminated dust and asbestos whilst employed by Mrs Janet Larsen.". [35] Following confirmation that no further information or medical reports detailing the nature of the Appellant's illness were received by the Registry by 9 October 2013 and having received no communication or correspondence from Mr Miller as to how he wished to proceed, the matter was relisted for Mention the following Tuesday 15 October 2013 at 1:00 p.m. A Notice of Listing was sent to all parties by the Industrial Registrar on Thursday 10 October 2013. [36] The Appellant did not appear at the Mention, or make contact with the Registry or my Associate on the day of the mention. My Associate checked email, voicemail messages and clarified with Registry staff that no contact had been made by Mr Miller regarding his non-attendance at the scheduled Mention, and searched the waiting area of level 13 of the QIRC. [37] During the Mention, the Regulator made an application to have the matter struck out pursuant to s. 331(b) of the Act. [38] The basis for the Regulator's application included:  repeated poor behaviour exhibited by Mr Miller during the proceedings, including emotional blow-ups and aggressive body language;  a threat made by Mr Miller to "spit on Q-COMP's Counsel";  a prior warning by the Regulator that it may seek to have the matter struck out where there were further examples of misconduct or misbehaviour;  the non-appearance of Mr Miller in the Commission on 27 September 2013;  Mr Miller's failure to provide adequate medical information or evidence of a genuine illness or reasons for his absence on 27 September 2013 other than a generic medical certificate containing no information about the illness;  Mr Miller's failure to provide further supporting medical information by 9 October 2013 as committed to in his fax of 3 October 2013; [39] Counsel for Q-COMP concluded the Appellant's right to represent himself and maintain these proceedings had been exhausted as a result of the Appellant's unsatisfactory conduct throughout. [40] At the conclusion of the Respondent's oral submissions in relation to the strike-out application, I indicated I would arrange for my Associate to send the transcript of 15 October 2013 to Mr Miller along with a request for written submissions as to why the matter should not be struck out, providing Mr Miller with fourteen days (14) to do so from receipt of the transcript. [41] On Wednesday 16 October 2013 (the day following the Mention) my Associate received a telephone call from the Registry advising that Mr Miller was at the counter. In a face-to-face discussion between my Associate and Mr Miller, he advised that he had mistakenly thought that the hearing that was held on the 15 October 2013 was scheduled for the following day. -- 5 of 9 -- 6 [42] My Associate's file note confirms Mr Miller stated he had received the Notice of Listing that was sent to the parties on the previous Thursday 10 October 2013, but that he had gotten confused. My Associate explained the Respondent had made an application to have the matter struck out and that in his absence Mr Miller had been provided with an opportunity to respond to the Regulator's application with a due date of 14 days of receiving the transcript. Relevant Legislation [43] "331 Decisions generally The court or commission may, in an industrial cause - … (b) dismiss the cause, or refrain from hearing, further hearing, or deciding the cause, if the court or commission considers - (i) the cause is trivial; or (ii) further proceedings by the court or commission are not necessary or desirable in the public interest; or…". [44] "45 Failure to attend or to comply with directions order (1) This rule applies if - (a) a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar stating a time, date and place for a hearing or conference for the proceeding; and (b) the party fails to attend the hearing or conference. (2) This rule also applies if - (a) a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar; and (b) the party fails to comply with the order. (3) The court, commission or registrar may - (a) dismiss the proceeding; or (b) make a further directions order; or…". Written Submissions [45] The formal written submissions of the Regulator essentially relied on the abovementioned chronology and expanded on its oral submissions, with a particular emphasis on the following matters:  the Commission had clearly outlined its expectations to both parties around what it considered to be acceptable conduct and behaviour during the proceedings; (T1, P8, L35-45; T1, P9, L1-10)  despite repeated reminders Mr Miller failed to comply with these requests on multiple occasions, speaking aggressively and threatening the Respondent; (T1, P53, L4 / T2, P20, L2 / T2-P39-40)  failure by Mr Miller to attend on the third day of hearing;  Mr Miller's failure to provide supporting medical evidence or reasons for his non-attendance despite being provided with three separate opportunities to do so; and  Mr Miller's failure to attend the hearing set down for 15 October 2013. [46] The Regulator relied on the following authorities in support of its application to strike out WC/2013/15: Fraser v Q-COMP1, Cuttler v Q-COMP2, Q-COMP v Labaj3, and APP Autocare Pty Ltd v Q-COMP4. [47] The Appellant's submissions were received by the Industrial Registry on 21 October 2013. Regrettably, the material received failed to address the Regulator's strike-out application or provide supporting evidence or reasons for Mr Miller's non-attendance on 27 September. Instead, the submissions provided sought to re- ventilate arguments associated with the substantive matter or raise objections in relation to the Regulator's cross- examination during the part-heard substantive matter including:  his right to call lay witnesses by telephone;  his inability to re-call witnesses due to "Q-COMP's continued badgering of myself in the witness box in the first day of hearing.";  the stress the Appellant has been subjected to because of the "lies" and "scheming" by Mrs Janet Larsen, which can be proven in documented form, and that the Commission should question the credibility of the Regulator's witnesses; 1 Fraser v Q-COMP [2008] QIRComm 126 2 Cuttler v Q-COMP [2008] 190 QGIG 9 3 Q-COMP v Labaj [2011] (B/2011/6) Decision <http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au> 4 APP Autocare Pty Ltd v Q-COMP [2009] 191 QGIG 215 -- 6 of 9 -- 7  various submissions in relation to property owned by Mrs Larsen, the failure of Mrs Larsen to comply with WorkCover investigations into the Appellant's employment status and the truthfulness or otherwise of Mrs Larsen;  that the Regulator's defence of this appeal is based on malicious, unsubstantiated and perjured lies of its witnesses, and any blame for wasting time during this hearing can be laid with the Regulator;  that the Regulator has tried to circumvent the real issue of the Appellant's employment with Mrs Larsen because of a financial agreement which he signed under duress;  that the Regulator are to refrain from making any further assertions that the Appellant was in a de-facto relationship with Mrs Larsen and anything to do with this assertion should be struck from the Commission's record due to Family Court proceedings underway that the Appellant is challenging; and  that further medical evidence will be sent following another appointment with the Appellant's doctor, and that the Commission will be notified when the Appellant feels his health has regained to a capacity where he can attend the hearing. [48] On 25 October 2013, the Appellant (unrequested) provided further submissions on the matter. Again, the material received failed to address the Regulator's strike-out application or provide supporting evidence or reasons for Mr Miller's non-attendance on 27 September 2013 and instead included complaints related to the substantive matter including:  that the Regulator have based their evidence in this case on nothing more than hear-say;  that the material the Regulator has put forward to the Commission are documents pertaining to ongoing Family Court of Australia litigation, and is admissible in this jurisdiction;  none of the evidence given by any of the Regulator's witnesses can be substantiated as Mrs Larsen is deceased, and the Appellant has documents in his possession proving that the Regulator's witnesses tell lies;  the reason that the Regulator has wasted time by objecting to the Appellant's witnesses is because those witnesses were on the site during the clean up and will tell the truth;  everything, including having the Appellant's witnesses appear via telephone, has been objected to by the Regulator and denied by the Commission;  regarding the Appellant's non-attendance at the hearing, Mr Miller strongly objects to the insinuations put forward by the Regulator with regards to a medical certificate from a practicing doctors. At the time of attending his doctor, it was suggested that further x-rays be obtained due to breathing difficulties and chest pain experienced by the Appellant, this was putting undue stress on the Appellant's heart;  that Counsel for the Regulator is a "know-it-all" with health issues, and that specialist doctor appointments take longer to be made;  that Counsel for the Regulator has done everything he possibly could to intimidate and belittle the Appellant with his muck-racking, in addition to the pain he caused by mentioning the Appellant's former deceased wife. The Appellant asserts that Counsel for the Regulator is typical of a person who antagonises the situation and then cries foul;  with regard to the Regulator's request to supply supporting documentation in relation to the Appellant's health issues, the Appellant says that he places more importance on his health at the time than running around and collecting further medical certificates for the Commission;  that the Appellant got the days of the Mention mixed up, and showed up at the Commission at 1:00p.m. on 16 October 2013, instead of 15 October 2013; and  that there is one set of rules for the Regulator and another set of rules for other people. The same applies to WorkCover. [49] The Appellant also attached a number of documents including witness statements, site maps, other correspondence and medical letters related to an existing heart condition. [50] Reply submissions received from the Regulator on 4 November 2013 maintained its application for WC/2013/15 to be struck out pursuant to section 331 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 noting the balance of Mr Miller’s submissions failed to address the strike out application and further, Mr Miller had repeatedly failed to avail himself of the opportunity to provide evidence in support of his non-attendance at the Commission or comply with requests for further information. Conclusions [51] Mr O'Neil on behalf of the Regulator has submitted this appeal should either be dismissed or that the Commission further refrain from hearing the matter because it would not be desirable in the public interest for the Commission to do so. -- 7 of 9 -- 8 [52] Against this submission the Commission, which has a duty to act in the public interest, must also weigh up the implications and reasons for dismissing such an application, particularly in circumstances where an Appellant such as Mr Miller is self represented. [53] It is clear the Commission has taken a generally consistent approach in dismissing matters where Appellant's either fail to appear and/or persistently fail to comply with directions issued by the Commission: see Fraser v Q- COMP5, Cuttler v Q-COMP6, APP Autocare Pty Ltd v Q-COMP7, Gold Coast Demolition Pty Ltd AND Q- COMP AND Sarah Davis8, Q-COMP v Wayne McAlinden9, and Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Dominic Burke10. [54] From the very outset, even before his Appeal reached the substantive hearing stage, Mr Miller was put on notice by Vice President Linnane of the consequences of failing to comply with Directions in so far as he risked having the appeal dismissed. [55] During the course of the substantive proceedings, on the days on which Mr Miller attended for hearing, the Commission's instructions or requests to Mr Miller as they related to unnecessarily interrupting the proceedings or refraining from aggressive or threatening behaviour were repeatedly ignored to the extent it was necessary to issue the following warning on the second day of hearing: "But tomorrow, just let me make it very clear, we cannot have a repeat of what transpired earlier this morning in relation to the engagement between yourself and Mr O'Neill. We want it to run smoothly and I know - again, I reinforce this, I understand your frustration with the circumstances that have occurred and the way things have played out but when we run matters in the Commission, whether you're self-represented or you're represented by somebody else, we have a certain standard that we try to adhere to and it doesn't include swearing and it involves treating each other with a degree of respect.". [56] It is also clear Mr O’Neil, Counsel for the Regulator, was verbally threatened during the course of the proceedings. In my view, such conduct is completely unacceptable. [57] In response to claims of ill health as the reason for his non-attendance on the final day of hearing, Mr Miller was provided with numerous opportunities on 27 September 2013, 3 October 2013 and 15 October 2013 to provide the Commission with supporting medical evidence substantiating the grounds upon which he was unable to attend the hearing on 27 September 2013 and also when he would be fit to resume proceedings. [58] At best, the Commission has been provided with a generic medical certificate dated 4 October 2013 which referred to Mr Miller being unable to attend for "work" and which lacked any detail in relation to the nature of the illness, along with a cursory comment from the Appellant in a fax received by the Registry on Wednesday 2 October 2013 stating: "9. I will be advising the Commission in due course as to when I am well enough to recommence the hearing."; [59] Earlier attempts by my Associate to confirm email, phone and home address contact details with Mr Miller to ensure correspondence in relation to his non-attendance and any subsequent hearings was sent to the appropriate address by the Registry, were treated with aggression and evasiveness by Mr Miller. [60] No reasons have been advanced to the Commission which would warrant granting Mr Miller a further opportunity to pursue WC/2013/15. Despite multiple opportunities to obtain and provide adequate medical evidence in support of his non-attendance on 27 September 2013, none has been forthcoming. [61] Mr Miller has also failed to comply with directions issued in the course of WC/2013/15. [62] Given the above circumstances, it is my view further proceedings in WC/2013/15 are not in the public interest. I therefore grant the Regulator's application to strike out WC/2013/15. [63] In so doing, I order that the appeal in WC/2013/15 be dismissed. The Decision of WorkCover Queensland of 28 September 2012 to reject Mr Miller's claim for compensation in accordance with s. 11 of the Act is confirmed. 5 Fraser v Q-COMP [2008] QIRComm 126 6 Cuttler v Q-COMP [2008] 190 QGIG 9 7 APP Autocare Pty Ltd v Q-COMP [2009] 191 QGIG 215 8 Gold Coast Demolition Pty Ltd AND Q-COMP AND Sarah Davis [2013] B/2013/48 9 Q-COMP v Wayne McAlinden [2009] B/2009/45 10 Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Dominic Burke [2013] B/2013/46 -- 8 of 9 -- 9 [64] The Regulator claims their costs of the appeal. They are entitled to their costs: see s. 448(3) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. Whilst the discretion vests in the Commission to order costs, the general rule as to costs in these matters are that costs follow the event. I have been provided with no material why the general rule should not prevail in this instance. [65] Regulation 113 provides that costs are to be under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, Schedule 3, Scale E. The Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs incurred by it in the defence of the Appellant's appeal in accordance with the schedule. These costs are to be paid within twenty-one (21) days of the release of this decision. Should those costs not be agreed then either party is at liberty to apply to the Commission. M.L. KNIGHT, Industrial Commissioner. Hearing Details: 2013 September 25, 26, 27 October 15 October 21 (Respondent's written submissions) October 21 (Appellant's written submissions) October 25 (Appellant's written submission) November 4 (Respondent's written submissions in reply) Appearances: Mr R. Miller, Appellant conducting his own case Mr P.B. O'Neill of Counsel, directly instructed by Q-COMP Released: 22 November 2013 -- 9 of 9 --