Industrial Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Chapman-Davis v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2015] NSWIC 13 Hearing dates: 14 and 28 August, 9 and 14 September 2015 (written submissions) Date of orders: 01 October 2015 Decision date: 01 October 2015 Before: Walton J, President Decision: The Court determines, declares and orders:
(1) At the time of her injury on 25 July 2011 the applicant was a ‘paramedic’ within the meaning and for the purposes of cl 25 of Pt 19H of Sch 6 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
(2) The respondents shall pay 80 per cent of the applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as agreed or assessed.Catchwords: DECLARATION - orders – agreement as to final form of orders to reflect decision of the Court – declaration confined to the date of the applicant’s injury
COSTS – partial agreement as to a costs order – residual contest related to early stages of proceedings and dispute as to costs itself – contest as to utility of applicant’s original application – applicant filed amended application which contained second declaration – central issue for adjudication encapsulated by second declaration – applicant successful as to second declaration – first declaration refused by Court for lack of utility – third declaration abandoned – applicant sought award of costs for whole proceedings in accordance with the principle that ‘costs follow the event’ – respondents argued applicant should pay costs prior to amended application being filed and sought no order for costs as to disposition of contest as to costs – principles of the exercise of the Court’s discretion to award costs – respondents should not be required to pay whole costs as a result of the course of proceedings prior to the amended application during which time costs were wasted – delay was occasioned by the manner in which the relief sought by the applicant was cast – further delay due to amended application replicating first and third declarations and pursuit of first declaration - circumstances of this matter necessitate a departure from the usual rule as to costs – the proceedings in relation to the first and third declarations were not a test case – respondent should also receive discount in relation to the contest as to costs itself as it was a proxy of the primary proceedings – in the circumstances it is appropriate to apportion costs rather than make a deduction by temporal segmentation – on balance respondents should pay 80 per cent of applicant’s costs – issue raised as to whether both respondents or only first respondent should pay costs – both respondents active in proceedings and should pay costs – final form of orders referable to both respondents – costs orderedLegislation Cited: Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987Cases Cited: Chapman-Davis v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWIC 10
Chubb Insurance Company of Australia Limited v Moore (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 299
Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4
CSR Ltd…
Continue reading Chapman-Davis v State of New South Wales (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Chapman-Davis v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2015] NSWIC 13
- Case
- [2015] NSWIC 13
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Chapman-Davis commenced proceedings against the State of New South Wales, seeking a declaration regarding the meaning of the term "paramedic" under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The matter was before the court to decide the interpretation of the term and the costs associated with the proceedings. The applicant filed an amended application that contained a second declaration, which was central to the court's adjudication. The first declaration was refused for lack of utility, and the third declaration was abandoned. The applicant sought an award of costs for the entire proceedings, while the respondents argued that the applicant should pay costs prior to the filing of the amended application and sought no order for costs regarding the disposition of the contest as to costs.
The court exercised its discretion in determining the costs order, finding that the respondents should not bear the entire costs of the proceedings due to the manner in which the relief was initially sought and the delay caused by the replication of the first and third declarations in the amended application. The court held that the proceedings in relation to the first and third declarations were not a test case, and the respondent should also receive a discount in relation to the contest as to costs itself as it was a proxy of the primary proceedings. The court concluded that it was appropriate to apportion costs rather than making a deduction by temporal segmentation and ordered that the respondents should pay 80 per cent of the applicant’s costs.
The court also addressed the issue of whether both respondents or only the first respondent should pay costs, determining that both respondents were active in the proceedings and should pay costs. The final form of orders was referable to both respondents, and the court ordered costs as agreed or assessed. The court determined that at the time of the applicant's injury on 25 July 2011, she was a "paramedic" within the meaning and for the purposes of cl 25 of Pt 19H of Sch 6 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
The court exercised its discretion in determining the costs order, finding that the respondents should not bear the entire costs of the proceedings due to the manner in which the relief was initially sought and the delay caused by the replication of the first and third declarations in the amended application. The court held that the proceedings in relation to the first and third declarations were not a test case, and the respondent should also receive a discount in relation to the contest as to costs itself as it was a proxy of the primary proceedings. The court concluded that it was appropriate to apportion costs rather than making a deduction by temporal segmentation and ordered that the respondents should pay 80 per cent of the applicant’s costs.
The court also addressed the issue of whether both respondents or only the first respondent should pay costs, determining that both respondents were active in the proceedings and should pay costs. The final form of orders was referable to both respondents, and the court ordered costs as agreed or assessed. The court determined that at the time of the applicant's injury on 25 July 2011, she was a "paramedic" within the meaning and for the purposes of cl 25 of Pt 19H of Sch 6 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court determines, declares and orders:
(1) At the time of her injury on 25 July 2011 the applicant was a ‘paramedic’ within the meaning and for the purposes of cl 25 of Pt 19H of Sch 6 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
(2) The respondents shall pay 80 per cent of the applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as agreed or assessed.
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.