Coles Group Limited v Reed & Q-COMP [2008] QIRC 56 (2008) 188 QGIG 233

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, Dated 4 July 2008, Vol. 188, No. 10, pages 233-234] QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1999 - s. 320 - basis of decisions of the commission and magistrates Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - s. 549 - who may appeal Coles Group Limited AND Kylie Michelle Reed and Q-COMP (WC/2008/46) DEPUTY PRESIDENT SWAN 27 June 2008 DECISION Ms Kylie Reed (the first respondent) is the appellant in an application [WC/2008/43 (the appeal)] made against the Review Unit of Q-COMP (the second respondent). The employer in that matter is Coles Group Limited (the applicant) which now makes the application pursuant to s. 549(3)(b) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) and s. 320 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 (the IR Act) for leave to appear and be heard in the appeal between the first respondent and the second respondent. Below is a summarised version of the applicant's submissions, which have been accepted by the first respondent and the second respondent:  In brief, the applicant stated that it is a self-insurer pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Act and it became a self-insurer on 1 July 1999.  Pursuant to the Act, the applicant as self-insurer is required to make payments pursuant to Chapters 3 and 4 of the Act in respect to any application for compensation which is accepted.  The applicant has financial and statutory obligations to the first respondent should she be successful in the appeal. It has financial and legal interest in the outcome of such an appeal.  The applicant has direct knowledge of the employment history and standard operating procedures of the business conducted by it.  Middleton v Teys Brothers (Holdings) Pty Ltd [2001] QIC 1 is authority for the proposition that s. 320(2) of the IR Act permits a discretion to be exercised by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in allowing a person to be heard subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission (and the Industrial Magistrates Court). This discretion includes appeals under the Act. BP Refinery (Bulwer Island) Pty Ltd v Bloor [2003] QIC 121 states that whether an employer ought to be permitted to appear and be heard at the appeal is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Commission.  The applicant in this matter has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the appeal. Counsel for the applicant states that there has been no delay in making the application and the involvement of the applicant will not delay the determination of the appeal which has yet to be set down for hearing.  Counsel for the applicant states that it will be able to assist the Commission in relation to its management and procedures and given that its pecuniary interests as a self-insurer and/or its reputation could be affected by the outcome of the appeal, it seeks that it be heard and that the Commission exercise its discretion under s. 320(2) of the IR Act for that to occur. A decision was given from the Bench stating that the application had been granted and that brief written reasons would follow. This having occurred, the Commission so orders that the applicant (Coles Group Limited) be at liberty to: (a) call and adduce evidence in the appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission; (b) cross-examine witnesses in the appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission; and (c) make submissions at the hearing of the appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. -- 1 of 2 -- 2 Order accordingly. D.A. SWAN, Deputy President. Hearing Details: 2008 26 June Released: 27 June 2008 Appearances: Mr M. O'Sullivan, Counsel, instructed by HWL Ebsworth Lawyers, for Coles Group Limited. Mr M. Forbes, of MurphySchmidt Solicitors, for Ms K.M. Reed. Ms J. Webb, of Q-COMP. Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2008. -- 2 of 2 --