Baigorri v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2)

[2023] QIRC 201

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Baigorri v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2023] QIRC 201

PARTIES:

Baigorri, Horacio Augusto
(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2021/204

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

11 July 2023

DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Respondent's written submissions filed on 10 July 2023

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Merrell DP

Brisbane

ORDER:

The Appellant pays the Respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $3,106.05.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – PERSONS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION – COSTS – appeal decision in favour of Respondent – whether costs of the hearing should follow the event – costs order in favour of Respondent

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

Uniform Civil Procedure (Fees) Regulation 2019, s 24

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 558

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014, s 132

Baigorri v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 190

Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No.2) [2021] ICQ 13

APPEARANCES:

Mr P. O’Neill of Counsel directly instructed by Ms C. Shedden of the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

1. By decision dated 22 June 2023, I made an order confirming the review decision of the Respondent in this matter.[1] I also ordered that the parties exchange and file written submissions on costs.[2]

2. Only the Respondent has filed submissions on costs.

   [1] Baigorri v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 190, [124].

   [2] Ibid.

3. The Regulator submits, having regard to the decision of Davis J, President, in                   Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No.2) ('QNMU'),[3] that:

   ·the power to award the costs of the hearing comes from the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ('the Act');

   ·section 558(3) of the Act is limited to the costs of the hearing; and

   ·the Commission must give reasons for the exercise of the discretion to award costs.

   [3] [2021] ICQ 13 ('QNMU'), [16]-[32].

4. Those submissions are correct.

1. The decision in QNMU is also authority for the proposition that, having regard to the power to award costs under s 558(3) of the Act, costs ought ordinarily follow the event.[4]

   [4] Ibid [16].

2. In the present case, the Respondent was wholly successful. There is no reason why the Appellant should not pay the Respondent's costs.

3. Having regard to scale C under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, schedule 2, part 2, as it applied as at 8 February 2023, the Respondent applies for the following itemised costs:

   ·Item 8 (f), Counsel's fee to appear at hearing – 8 February 2023:  $1,686.00;

   ·Item 10(b), attendance of clerk – 8 February 2023:  $306.75;

   ·Item 13(a)(i), Disclosure  –  requesting: $365.90; and

   ·Item 13(a)(ii), Disclosure  –  making: $660.85.

4. The Respondent also applies for the attendance allowance, provided for in s 24(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure (Fees) Regulation 2019, for its lay witness, in the amount of $86.55. Such an allowance is a cost that may be allowed.[5]

   [5] Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014, s 132(2)(b).

5. The Regulator seeks an order that Mr Baigorri pay its costs of the hearing, fixed in the amount of $3,106.05.

6. Having regard to Mr Baigorri's appeal, the itemised costs sought by the Regulator are reasonable.

   Order

7. I make the following order:

   The Appellant pays the Respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $3,106.05.