Anderson v Pickles Auctions Pty Ltd - [2022] QSC 265

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Anderson v Pickles Auctions Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 265

PARTIES:

MARK DE LEIGE ANDERSON

(plaintiff)

v
PICKLES AUCTIONS PTY LTD
ABN 32 003 417 650

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 8418 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 December 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 October 2022

JUDGE:

Cooper J

ORDER:

1. The application filed by the plaintiff on 30 September 2022 is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – TAXATION AND OTHER FORMS OF ASSESSMENT – PARTICULAR ITEMS – COUNSEL FEES – NUMBER OF COUNSEL – TWO COUNSEL – where the plaintiff and respondent entered a release and discharge in relation to a claim arising from a work-related personal injury – where the parties were unable to reach agreement as to costs – where the court appointed a costs assessor – where the costs assessment concluded that counsel’s fees were not an allowable outlay under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) – whether the costs assessor erred in concluding that counsel’s fees were not allowable in an assessment of costs – whether the costs assessor erred in concluding that the costs of two counsel should not be allowed – whether the court should exercise the discretion conferred by r 742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 686, r 701, r 702, r 703, r 738, r 742
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 289, s 290A, s 292, s 310, s 311, s 312, s 313, s 314, s 315, s 316, s 325R, s 584
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld), reg 134, reg 135, reg 136, reg 137

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41, cited
Australian Coal & Shale Employees’ Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621, cited
J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Ltd [2015] 1 Qd R 562; [2013] QCA 406, cited
Pinehurst Nominees Pty Ltd v Coeur De Lion Investments Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 122, cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, cited
R v Wassmuth; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2022] QCA 113, cited
Schweppes Ltd v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178, cited
Stanley v Phillips (1966) 115 CLR 470, cited
Wiesac Pty Ltd v Insurance Australia Ltd (No 3) (2021) 7 QR 642; [2021] QSC 069, cited

COUNSEL:

N Ferrett KC for the plaintiff

C Heyworth-Smith KC for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Turner Freeman Lawyers for the plaintiff

Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers for the defendant

In this proceeding, the plaintiff claimed damages for personal injury arising from a work-related incident.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Anderson v Pickles Auctions Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] QSC 265
Decision Date: 6 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Anderson v Pickles Auctions Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Anderson, and the respondent, Pickles Auctions Pty Ltd, which arose from a work-related personal injury claim. Following the settlement of the claim, the parties were unable to agree on the costs incurred, leading to the appointment of a costs assessor. The key issue before the court was whether the costs assessor had erred in determining that the counsel's fees were not allowable under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) and whether the fees for two counsel should not be allowed.

The court examined the relevant regulations and rules governing costs in personal injury claims. The court found that the costs assessor had correctly interpreted the regulation which specified allowable costs, concluding that counsel's fees were not an allowable outlay. The court further determined that the use of two counsel was not justified under the circumstances and that the costs assessor did not err in disallowing the fees associated with the second counsel. The court held that the discretion under r 742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) should not be exercised to alter the costs assessment.

Accordingly, the application by the plaintiff to challenge the costs assessment was dismissed. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application filed by the plaintiff on 30 September 2022 is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Anderson v Pickles Auctions Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 265
PARTIES:	MARK DE LEIGE ANDERSON (plaintiff) v PICKLES AUCTIONS PTY LTD ABN 32 003 417 650 (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 8418 of 2019
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 December 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 October 2022
JUDGE:	Cooper J
ORDER:	1. The application filed by the plaintiff on 30 September 2022 is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – TAXATION AND OTHER FORMS OF ASSESSMENT – PARTICULAR ITEMS – COUNSEL FEES – NUMBER OF COUNSEL – TWO COUNSEL – where the plaintiff and respondent entered a release and discharge in relation to a claim arising from a work-related personal injury – where the parties were unable to reach agreement as to costs – where the court appointed a costs assessor – where the costs assessment concluded that counsel’s fees were not an allowable outlay under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) – whether the costs assessor erred in concluding that counsel’s fees were not allowable in an assessment of costs – whether the costs assessor erred in concluding that the costs of two counsel should not be allowed – whether the court should exercise the discretion conferred by r 742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 686, r 701, r 702, r 703, r 738, r 742 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 289, s 290A, s 292, s 310, s 311, s 312, s 313, s 314, s 315, s 316, s 325R, s 584 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld), reg 134, reg 135, reg 136, reg 137 Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41, cited Australian Coal & Shale Employees’ Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621, cited J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Ltd [2015] 1 Qd R 562; [2013] QCA 406, cited Pinehurst Nominees Pty Ltd v Coeur De Lion Investments Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 122, cited Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, cited R v Wassmuth; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2022] QCA 113, cited Schweppes Ltd v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178, cited Stanley v Phillips (1966) 115 CLR 470, cited Wiesac Pty Ltd v Insurance Australia Ltd (No 3) (2021) 7 QR 642; [2021] QSC 069, cited
COUNSEL:	N Ferrett KC for the plaintiff C Heyworth-Smith KC for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Turner Freeman Lawyers for the plaintiff Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers for the defendant