In this episode of P.I. Case Note, Michelle Wright examines the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission’s decision in Talay v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 273, which provides valuable guidance on preventing workers’ compensation appeal from lapsing when obtaining expert evidence causes delays. The case involved Miss Talay, an aged care worker who injured her right wrist and filed an appeal with the QIRC in December 2023, had her matter placed in abeyance to obtain additional medical evidence, and then filed an application to reinstate her appeal in September 2025—only to discover that her proceedings had never actually lapsed because disclosing an expert report to the Regulator constituted “action” under Rule 230 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 (Qld).
The Commission’s helpful analysis reveals the key to preventing workers’ compensation appeal from lapsing lies in understanding what constitutes “action” for the purposes of the one-year inaction rule. Rule 230 provides that proceedings will lapse if no action has been taken by the applicant for at least one year since the last action was taken. Miss Talay had obtained medico-legal examinations in August and September 2024, received the second expert report in February 2025, and disclosed it to the Regulator in March 2025 with a request to reconsider. The Commission confirmed that “action” is not confined to formal steps like filing documents with the Commission or attending hearings, but can include communications between solicitors or discovery and inspection of documents. Critically, the Commission found that disclosing a medical report constitutes action under a workers’ compensation appeal because it progresses the matter towards conclusion. Since Miss Talay had disclosed the expert report in March 2025, only six months had passed when she filed her reinstatement application in September 2025—meaning her proceedings had never lapsed and didn’t require reinstatement. The Commission noted that Rule 230 sub-rule 3 sets out both what must be included in a reinstatement application and the factors the Commission considers when deciding whether to exercise discretion to reinstate: steps taken, explanation for delay, proposed future steps, prejudice to other parties, merits of the proceeding, and why reinstatement is appropriate despite delay.
Listen for Michelle Wright’s detailed analysis of this important decision on preventing workers’ compensation appeal from lapsing and what counts as action. If you’re pursuing a workers’ compensation appeal and concerned about delays while obtaining expert evidence, the experienced team at accident legal understands how to keep your appeal alive through strategic actions. As Queensland’s trusted personal injury lawyers, we know that preventing workers compensation appeal from lapsing requires regular communication with opponents, timely disclosure of reports, and understanding that informal steps like providing documents can constitute action that restarts the one-year clock. Contact us for a free consultation on (07) 3740 0200—we’ll manage your appeal timeline to ensure it never lapses while we build the strongest possible case with comprehensive expert evidence.
