QLD Apology rule civil proceedings

[John Etherington]

Hi I was wondering if the apology rule section 72 D (2) of the civil liabilities act 2003 would cover an appeal case at the qirc. While it is a statutory appeal and not a liability claim would this apology rule still apply.

It states ‘(2) Evidence of an apology made by a person is not admissible in any civil proceeding as evidence of the fault or liability of the person in relation to the matter.’

The key term is any civil proceeding.

Thanks

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

You need to make sure the action is a civil proceeding first.

Then, section 72D(2) does not apply to all circumstances. Read sections 5 and 72A for exempted matters.

 

[John Etherington]

You need to make sure the action is a civil proceeding first.

Then, section 72D(2) does not apply to all circumstances. Read sections 5 and 72A for exempted matters.

Hi thanks for the response. This is not an exempted matter. My company are appealing my accepted workcover claim at the QIRC. They are trying to use an apology I made to defuse a situation as evidence I breached a rule. My contention which has been accepted was that it was simply a way of diffusing a difficult situation. I came across the law in the civil liabilities act and wondered if they can even submit the apology as evidence or at least that the commissioner accept the demotion attached to it. The case is a civil case but currently liability is not the issue it is reasonable management action.

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

If the matter involves an injury under Workcover then an exemption may apply. Section 5 of the Civil Liability Act excludes certain injuries under the old WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. This was replaced by the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The Acts Interpretation Act provides that the reference to the repealed act may be read as a reference to the replacement act.

They may have to wade their way through technical argument to get it admitted, but it may be possible.

Also, you can submit most forms of evidence (unless they're clearly not appropriate). Whether or not they are admissible is a part of why you have a judge and lawyers - they need to argue it out. It's a highly technical area of law, and something that doesn't always make sense to people

 

[John Etherington]

If the matter involves an injury under Workcover then an exemption may apply. Section 5 of the Civil Liability Act excludes certain injuries under the old WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. This was replaced by the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The Acts Interpretation Act provides that the reference to the repealed act may be read as a reference to the replacement act.

They may have to wade their way through technical argument to get it admitted, but it may be possible.

Also, you can submit most forms of evidence (unless they're clearly not appropriate). Whether or not they are admissible is a part of why you have a judge and lawyers - they need to argue it out. It's a highly technical area of law, and something that doesn't always make sense to people

Yeah I am finding that it’s a bit complex. Put simply though or as simply as you can, would a judge be expected to give consideration to the civil liabilities act or is he only bound by the industrial relations act?

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

The courts are bound by all relevant laws for their jurisdiction. But you're better off raising it if you think it is relevant, than expecting it to be considered.