Contractual indemnities appear in many services agreements, including subcontracting, labour hire and wet plant hire agreements. Indemnity clauses shift liability from one party to another by requiring one party to indemnify the other.
A recent case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal shows that, even when injuries are found to have been sustained in the course of employment, an employee can have no entitlement to compensation.
The Industrial Court of Queensland has ruled that an employer does not have the right to be heard at an appeal to the QIRC filed by a worker against a decision of the Regulator.
On 1 October 2015, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) commenced a new process for dealing with appeals against review decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Regulator.
The Industrial Court of Queensland (ICQ) recently handed down a decision (Blackwood v Civeo Pty Ltd), which will affect certain claims for workers’ compensation.
In Waugh v Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 028, the Industrial Court of Queensland highlighted the breadth of an employer’s potential liability for activities undertaken by its staff, even where such activities have little connection with the employer’s business.
There is a tussle taking place in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission regarding the right of an employer to be heard in an appeal by a worker against a decision of the Regulator. Two recent cases have come to very different conclusions in relation to the employer’s right to be heard.
In this case, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has found that ‘a nothing event’ was able to cause an aggravation to a previous work related neck injury, thereby allowing the worker to receive further compensation to cover the period of the aggravation.
On 17 September 2015 the Queensland Parliament passed a Bill to amend the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCRA). The amendment saw significant changes to the WCRA and took effect from 9 October 2015.
Prior to the Queensland election on 31 January 2015, the Australian Labor Party proposed a number of legislative changes that will affect employers.
The Supreme Court decision in Schonell v Laspina, Trabucco & Co Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 90, confirms that the test for reasonableness is forward-looking and cannot be considered with the aid of hindsight. The decision also provides that deliberately obtaining information in creative ways to avoid the operation of section 279 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) is behaviour contrary to the objects of the Act.
This recent case provides a definitive answer to a question that has arisen numerous times in practice, but has never been answered judicially: Does non-compliance with the 60 day time limit in section 302(2) of the Workers’ Compensation & Rehabilitation Act (WCRA) prevent a claimant from pursuing a common law damages claim where the claim has otherwise been brought within the limitation period set by the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (LAA)?