Dawson v State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet) - [2022] QIRC 482

INDUSTRIAL REGISTRAR

CITATION:	Dawson v State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet) [2022] QIRC 482
PARTY:	Dawson, Travis (Applicant) v State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	PID/2021/1
PROCEEDING:	Application for costs assessment
DELIVERED ON: HEARING DATE:	14 December 2022 On the papers
MEMBER:	Industrial Registrar Shelley
ORDERS:	The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs to the value of $55,141.54.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND - PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE - Decision on Costs - Application for Costs assessment - Costs assessed by Industrial Registrar - Consideration of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 in the assessment of costs - Validity of Notice of Objection - Applicant to pay costs of the Respondent.
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 545 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 70 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, rr 679, 693, 702, 706, 708, 722, 729, Schedule 2, Part 1
CASES:	Stephen Kevin Saville AND Q-COMP and State of Queensland (acting through the Department of Corrective Services) (No.3) and Stephen Kevin Saville AND Q-COMP and State of Queensland (acting through the Department of Corrective Services) (No. 3) (C/2007/4) and (C/2007/40) - Decision < Naumann v Clarke & Robertson Radiology & Ors [2002] QDC 69 at [16] Hennessey Glass and Aluminium Pty Ltd v Watpac Australia Pty Ltd [2007] QDC 057 Otto v Redhead & Ors [2011] QSC 252

Reasons for Decision

Background

On 21 December 2021, Vice President O'Connor released a Decision as a result of submissions made by the State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet) (Respondent) pursuant to s 545 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, that Travis Dawson (Applicant) pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to proceedings before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (Commission).
Vice President O'Connor made the following orders:
1.       The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to these proceedings on the standard basis, calculated on the scale of costs for the Magistrates Courts under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).
2.       The costs be in an amount agreed, or if the parties fail to reach agreement within 14 days of this decision on costs:
(a)The Respondent is to file in the Industrial Registry and serve on the Applicant its schedule of costs claimed within 28 days of this decision on costs;
(b)The Applicant is to file and serve any objection to the costs claimed within 21 days of being served with the schedule of the costs claimed; and
(c)Costs are to be assessed by the Industrial Registrar following an Application for Costs Assessment being made by the Respondent.
3.       The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs of any assessment.
4.       Any costs agreed or assessed are to be paid within 28 days of agreement or assessment.

In accordance with those orders, on 18 January 2022 the Respondent filed a Costs Statement with an amount of $55,141.54 being claimed.
The Applicant filed a Notice of Objection on 8 February 2022 which, in summary, outlined the following objections:
(a)…

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.

Continue reading Dawson v State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and...

Details

AGLC: Dawson v State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet) [2022] QIRC 482
Case: [2022] QIRC 482
Decision Date: 14 December 2022 On the papers

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dawson v State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet) concerns a dispute over the assessment of costs in an industrial law matter, specifically related to a public interest disclosure case. The proceedings took place in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The Applicant, Dawson, contested the Respondent's (State of Queensland) claim for costs, raising objections to specific items in the costs statement. The legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether the objections raised by the Applicant to the claimed costs were valid, and if so, whether the assessment of the costs should proceed under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

The Vice President, O'Connor, reviewed the objections raised by Dawson to the costs claimed by the Respondent. The objections included issues such as lack of information, inconsistency with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, inefficiency, premature incurring of costs, and costs not allowable under certain rules. After considering these objections, the Vice President determined that the objections were either unfounded or did not warrant setting aside the original cost orders. The Vice President ordered that the costs claimed by the Respondent be assessed by the Industrial Registrar, and that the Applicant would bear the costs of the assessment. The Applicant subsequently filed an application to set aside the cost orders, which was denied, leading to the Respondent's application for costs assessment.

Following the denial of Dawson's application to set aside the cost orders, the Respondent applied for the assessment of the costs claimed. The Vice President ordered that the costs be assessed according to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, and that Dawson pay the Respondent's costs of the assessment. The Vice President also directed that any agreed or assessed costs be paid within 28 days of the assessment decision. The Respondent subsequently filed a Costs Statement claiming $55,141.54. Dawson filed a Notice of Objection to the costs claimed, which was later found to be invalid as it did not comply with the procedural requirements. As a result, the Vice President upheld the original cost orders, requiring Dawson to pay the Respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs to the value of $55,141.54.

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

Vice President O'Connor made the following orders:1. The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to these proceedings on the standard basis, calculated on the scale of costs for the Magistrates Courts under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).2. The costs be in an amount agreed, or if the parties fail to reach agreement within 14 days of this decision on costs:(a)The Respondent is to file in the Industrial Registry and serve on the Applicant its schedule of costs claimed within 28 days of this decision on costs;(b)The Applicant is to file and serve any objection to the costs claimed within 21 days of being served with the schedule of the costs claimed; and(c)Costs are to be assessed by the Industrial Registrar following an Application for Costs Assessment being made by the Respondent.3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs of any assessment.4. Any costs agreed or assessed are to be paid within 28 days of agreement or assessment. In accordance with those orders, on 18 January 2022 the Respondent filed a Costs Statement with an amount of $55,141.54 being claimed. The Applicant filed a Notice of Objection on 8 February 2022 which, in summary, outlined the following objections:(a) Item 79 - Not enough information to disentangle the motion to strike from other advice. Submissions at that time were that in matter was without jurisdiction. Costs that do not relate directly to preparing and arguing the jurisdictional issue were prematurely briefed by Crown Law consistent with r 729 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR).(b) Item 112-118, 337-341 - Inconsistent with Schedule 2, Part 1, of the UCPR.(c) Item 84-96 - Not efficient costs. "These costs are Crown Law sending around copies of a directions orders that is drafted. That were issued unchanged by commission".(d) Item 102-111 and portions of 163 and 203 ‑ Costs were incurred prematurely under r 729 of the UCPR.(e) Items 146-152 - Not allowable under r 693 of the UCPR.(f) Item 184, 195, 197, 198, 357-363, 380-397, 403-418 - Only part of the costs of considering and responding to correspondence relating to PID/2021/1. On 6 October 2022, the Applicant filed an Application in Existing Proceedings requesting, amongst other things, that the orders made in the decision of Vice President O'Connor on 21 December 2021 be set aside and replaced with an order that costs are no longer available because of unnecessary and unexplainable delays in progressing the matter. The Respondent advised the Industrial Registry on 21 October 2022 that the parties agreed to enter into negotiations in an attempt to resolve the matter of costs and requested the Mention listed for 24 October 2022 be rescheduled to 4 November 2022. On 3 November 2022, the Respondent filed an Application in Existing Proceedings, together with an affidavit of Ms Catriona McPherson, Acting Assistant Crown Solicitor, in which the following orders were sought:1. Pursuant to r 70(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011, the Industrial Registrar assess the Respondent's costs claimed in PID/2021/1 in accordance with the Respondent's 'Costs Statement' filed in the Commission on 18 January 2022.2. The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs assessed by the Industrial Registrar.3. The Applicant pay the Respondent's assessed costs within 28 days of the Industrial Registrar delivering its assessment decision.4. Any other orders that the Commission deems appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.