Case Summary: Corney v Workers’ Compensation Regulator (No 2) [2024] QIRC 305

Keywords: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, non-party production, workers' compensation, psychiatric injury, procedural fairness, abuse of process, subpoena, Townsville University Hospital, confidentiality breach

By Honest Grace Legal | Employment Law | Sep 2025

Subject

Court Rejects Nurse’s Bid for Hospital Records in Workers' Compensation Appeal 

What Happened

Steven Corney, a former enrolled nurse at Townsville University Hospital, filed a workers' compensation claim alleging a psychiatric injury caused by being falsely accused of breaching patient confidentiality. His claim was rejected by WorkCover Queensland, a decision upheld by the Workers' Compensation Regulator. Corney appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC). 

Ahead of the hearing, Corney issued two sets of notices (in October and November 2024) seeking various hospital documents, including confidential patient records. The hospital objected, citing relevance and privacy concerns. After failing to act on the first set of objections, Corney reissued nearly identical requests in November. 

Key Legal Issues

• Abuse of process: Did Corney misuse Commission procedures by reissuing document requests already stayed? 

• Relevance and confidentiality: Were the requested documents appropriate or necessary for the appeal? 

• Proper use of non-party production rules: Were the notices legitimate tools for litigation or merely “fishing expeditions” 

What the Court Decided

The QIRC set aside both November notices. Deputy President Merrell found that Corney’s second attempt was an improper workaround to earlier objections that had not been addressed in time. The court viewed this as an abuse of process that undermined the integrity of its procedures. 

The court also concluded that the documents sought—particularly patient records—were either too vague, irrelevant to the injury claim, or an attempt to pursue unrelated allegations, including possible criminal conduct by hospital staff. 

• Re-litigation tactic rejected: Reissuing identical notices after failing to act on objections was considered a deliberate procedural end-run. 

• Strict standards on subpoenas: A document must have “apparent relevance” to the issues in dispute; broad, speculative requests are not permitted. 

• Confidentiality upheld: Even where a patient is deceased, the expectation of medical privacy remains, absent a compelling legal reason to override it. 

• Scope and timing matter: Requests covering overly broad time periods or post-dating the injury were deemed unnecessary and unjustified. 

Outcome

Why This Case Matters

This ruling reinforces procedural discipline in Queensland workers' compensation appeals. It warns against attempting to “reset the clock” after missing deadlines, and affirms the courts' authority to prevent misuse of their processes. It also highlights the high threshold for accessing sensitive, third-party information, particularly in health-related matters. 

For legal practitioners, it underscores: 

• The importance of acting promptly on objections. 

• That document requests must be specific, relevant, and proportional. 

• The strong judicial preference for finality, efficiency, and the protection of confidential information in litigation. 

Source

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2024/QIRC24-305.pdf