Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v Q-Comp [2004] QSC 322

State Reporting Bureau jpDC4.J QSC 3£P~ Queensland Government Department of Justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION MOYNIHAN J REVISED COPIES ISSUED State Reporting Bureau Date: 6 September, 2004 No 7456 of 2004 AUSTRALIA MEAT HOLDINGS PTY LTD Applicant (ACN 011 062 338) and Q-COMP AND ITS SUCCESSOR THE WORKERS Respondent COMPENSATION REGULATORY AUTHORITY BRISBANE ..DATE 27/08/2004 JUDGMENT WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings. 1 4th Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360 Fax: (07) 3247 5532 -- 1 of 4 -- 1 HIS HONOUR: The applicant is a self insurer in terms of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. It seeks a stay of a decision by Q-Comp of 12 August of this year allowing a compensation claim by Jason John Stott for an alleged injury suffered on 12 October 2001 until the determination of a judicial review, the first return date of which is 7 September this year. 27082004 T18/EAM37 M/T 2 /2004 & 3/2004 (Moynihan J) 10 When the original injury occurred on 12 October 2001, the WorkCover Queensland Act applied. The worker, as I say, was allegedly injured on the 12th of October 2001. A claim described as the first application in respect of a fractured left radial head lodged on the 22nd of September 2003 was accepted and benefits were paid. Payments were ceased for reasons given on the 27th of July 2004. It is not necessary to consider the details of that. 30 On the 28th of April, the worker who is not presently a party to these proceedings but who it is accepted is a proper party, sought a review of the Q-Comp decision. On the 7th of May 2004 he claimed compensation for psychological injury. That 4 appears to have been followed by a further claim on the 24th of June in respect of an injury described as "chronic pain left elbow" . The applicant contended by a letter of the 2nd of July that the latter injury was considered in the first application. 50 By a decision of the 12th of August 2004, Q-Comp advised that the application for chronic pain syndrome was to be accepted 2 JUDGMENT 0 -- 2 of 4 -- 1 on the basis that the worker had suffered a psychological injury. The applicant seeks a review of that decision on the basis that, although it may well have considered the other injuries, it had not made a decision in respect of that which is described as the third application. 10 27082004 T19/EAM37 M/T 3/2004 (Moynihan J) The urgency of this application is said to be explained by the applicant's contention that it is compelled, pursuant to Q- Comp's performance standards and benchmarks for insurers in the position of the applicant, to pay compensation within seven working days of the review decision. 20 The applicant contends that pursuant to Section 512 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, that the worker cannot be required to refund payment to the self insurer. I am not 30 persuaded that Section 512 necessarily has that consequence. The questions which therefore would seem to arise are the strength of the applicant's case for a review and the balance of convenience. 40 It is true to say that there are issues in terms of the ability of the applicant to recover money paid to the worker. On the other hand, the balance of convenience would seem to favour the view that there be no intervention at this stage. 50 As I have said, the first return of the application for review is the 7th of September. Taking the whole of the circumstances into consideration, I am not persuaded that I ought to order a stay as the matter presently stands. It does 3 JUDGMENT 60 -- 3 of 4 -- 1 seem appropriate to give directions to bring about the early determination of the review and I will hear submissions in respect of the directions regime with a view to achieving that . 27082004 T19/EAM37 M/T 3/2004 (Moynihan J) 10 HIS HONOUR: I order that Mr Stott be joined as a respondent. I will make the directions orders 1 to 11 on the draft and I will-hear what you want to tell me Mr Hinson about costs. 2v. HIS HONOUR: I think each party's costs in the cause subject to today's alterations. 30 50 4 JUDGMENT 60 -- 4 of 4 --