A Northern Territory transport company has lost its appeal of a workers’ compensation claim approved for a Queensland-based truck driver who was injured while carrying out cross-border work.
In March 2021, Stratford North employee Jared Ross Dinning suffered a back injury while carrying out maintenance on a company truck at Morayfield in Moreton Bay.
In January last year, Stratford North appealed a Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) decision from December 2023 which confirmed a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Regulator from November 2021 to grant Mr Dinning’s claim for workers’ compensation.
The company then appealed to the Industrial Court, arguing Mr Dinning’s employment was not “connected with” Queensland for the purpose of Section 113 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
In a 38-page decision delivered on 21 March, Industrial Court Vice President O’Connor dismissed the appeal, finding there was no error in the Commissioner’s decision that Mr Dinning was “usually based” in Queensland.
Section 113(1) of the Act provides compensation is only payable in relation to employment that is “connected with” Queensland.
Stratford North’s evidence showed that between June 2020, when Mr Dinning began working for the company, and March 2021, he spent 60 days in Queensland, 41 days in the NT, five days in South Australia and two days in NSW.
The company argued therefore, that Mr Dinning did not have a single state that he “usually works” in.
The company appealed on 14 grounds, including that the QIRC misconstrued and therefore misapplied s 113; made critical findings that were unsupported by and against the evidence; and failed to properly consider to the company’s submissions.
It sought a finding that Mr Dinning was usually based in the NT for the purposes of his employment, or alternatively that he did not have a single state where he was usually based; and that Stratford North’s business activities were controlled or managed from the NT.
It sought a substituted decision that Mr Dinning’s employment was not “connected with” Queensland for the purposes of s 113(1).
Vice President O’Connor said the approach adopted by the Commissioner “was informed by the relevant authorities, consistent with the statutory provision and reflective of the evidence before her”.
“Moreover, her approach was responsive to the submissions advanced by the appellant and the respondents,” he said.
She had pointed out that the state in which a worker is usually based may not be the same place the worker spends most of their time, or where they report to, and may coincide with the state in which they usually work.
Vice President O’Connor said Stratford North was attempting to reagitate matters and had “not particularised the alleged inadequacy of reasons with any precision”.
“It is not a valid ground of appeal that a disappointed party disagrees with the findings … an error of a particular type must be demonstrated and the mere fact that a member of the Commission has preferred some evidence over other evidence is not, on that ground alone, an appellable error,” he said.
He said the criticisms of the QIRC decision were “factual complaints”, and that Stratford North had “mobilised a series of repetitive and, in some cases, irrelevant objections”.
“It was the prerogative of the Commissioner to take a different approach to the evidence and how it should be assessed,” he said.
“The Commissioner’s reasoning is clear. She has identified the evidence she thought was important, made findings in favour of the respondents and applied the correct legal principles to the facts as found.
“There are not grounds upon which those findings ought to be disturbed.”
Share this article