In Croden v George Weston Foods Pty Limited t/a Tip Top Production [2024] QDC 214, the Queensland District Court considered an application by an injured worker, Mr Croden, to commence proceedings under section 298 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA) despite non-compliance with the statutory pre-court procedures. This case highlights the importance of timely compliance with procedural requirements in workers’ compensation claims and the potential for judicial intervention when strict compliance is not possible.  

Background: Croden’s Work Injury Timeline and Claim Notice

Mr Croden alleged he sustained work-related injuries between 13 March 2006 and 29 December 2023 while employed by George Weston Foods Pty Limited (Tip Top Production). On 15 November 2024, he served a Notice of Claim for Damages on WorkCover Queensland, seeking compensation for injuries that he stated became symptomatic in December 2023. A key issue was that WorkCover had not yet issued a Notice of Assessment, making the Notice of Claim non-compliant under section 275 of the WCRA. Despite the usual practice of allowing urgent compliance, WorkCover’s solicitors refused to grant it in this instance, forcing Mr Croden’s legal team to bring an application before the court.  

Legal Issues and Arguments

The application was brought under section 298 of the WCRA, which allows a claimant to commence proceedings despite procedural non-compliance, provided that the court is satisfied it is appropriate to do so. WorkCover opposed the application, arguing that: – There might not be an urgent need to commence proceedings.  

  • If Mr Croden’s injuries only became symptomatic within the standard three-year limitation period (or within 12 months of achieving compliance), he might not need immediate court intervention.  
  • The evidence regarding the onset of symptoms and the need for urgency was uncertain.

Court’s Decision

Judge Sheridan DCJ granted Mr Croden’s application, allowing him to commence proceedings despite non-compliance with section 275. Her Honour considered the uncertain state of the evidence and found it appropriate to grant relief, ensuring Mr Croden’s claim could proceed without further delay. Importantly, while WorkCover’s refusal to grant urgent compliance played a role in necessitating the application, the court reserved costs. This means that the question of whether WorkCover’s conduct was unreasonable—thereby justifying an adverse costs order—would be considered at a later stage when the court was in a better position to assess the necessity of the application.  

Key Takeaways

1.Judicial Discretion to Overcome Procedural Hurdles  

This case reinforces that courts have the discretion to allow claims to proceed despite procedural non-compliance where it is appropriate, particularly in cases involving uncertain medical evidence.  

2. WorkCover’s Approach to Urgent Compliance 

 While urgent compliance is often granted in similar cases, WorkCover’s refusal here resulted in unnecessary litigation. This decision suggests that unreasonable refusals may not be viewed favourably by the court.  

3. Costs Considerations  

The court’s decision to reserve costs suggests that WorkCover’s opposition to the application will be scrutinised further. If it is found that WorkCover’s refusal was unjustified, a costs order against WorkCover could follow. For injured workers, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of early legal advice. Procedural non-compliance can create significant obstacles, but courts are willing to intervene where necessary to ensure access to justice.