Digby v The Compass Institute Inc [No 2] - [2015] QSC 361

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Digby v The Compass Institute Inc and another [No 2] [2015] QSC 361

PARTIES:

MELANIE DIGBY

(plaintiff)

v
THE COMPASS INSTITUTE INC (ABN 74 168 383 378)

(first defendant)

and

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(second defendant)

FILE NO:

SC No 3490 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for Costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 December 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6, 11, 12, 18 November 2015

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDER:

1.   The plaintiff pay 50 per cent of the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on the standard basis.

2.   The first defendant pay 50 per cent of the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

·     PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – CO-DEFENDANTS – where the plaintiff brought a claim primarily in negligence against the first defendant and the second defendant – where the first defendant had been the plaintiff’s employer and was represented in the proceedings by its insurer, WorkCover – where the parties had each made offers of settlement prior to the trial, none of which was accepted – where the plaintiff was successful against the first defendant – where the plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant was dismissed – where the quantum of damages awarded to the plaintiff at trial was greater than the first defendant’s final offer but less than the plaintiff’s final offer – where provisions of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2002 (Qld) affected the making of any costs orders – whether the plaintiff or first defendant should pay the second defendant’s costs of the proceedings – whether any other orders as to costs as between the parties should be made

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 353

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 233, s 292, s 315, s 316, s 316A, s 318A, s 318B, s 318D, s 318E

Duong v Versacold Logistics Ltd [2011] QSC 35
Gould v Vaggelas (1984) 157 CLR 215
Lackersteen v Jones[No 2] (1988) 93 FLR 442

Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330

Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Co [1903] 2 KB 533

COUNSEL:

GR Mullins with JM Harper for the plaintiff

BF Charrington for the first defendant

MT O’Sullivan for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn for the plaintiff

MacDonnells Law for the first defendant

Crown Solicitor for the second defendant

ATKINSON J: On 30 October 2015, judgment was delivered in Digby v The Compass Institute and another [2015] QSC 308. The orders made in the substantive proceeding were as follows:
1.Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $158,045.
2.Case dismissed against the second defendant.
The parties subsequently provided written submissions as to costs.
The orders sought
The plaintiff and the second defendant (in its primary submission) concurred in the orders they each sought, namely…

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 Digby v The Compass Institute Inc [No 2] 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: [2015] QSC 361
Decision Date: 17 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Digby v The Compass Institute Inc [No 2] involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Digby, and two defendants, The Compass Institute Inc and its former employer, the first defendant, which was represented by its insurer, WorkCover. The plaintiff’s claim was primarily in negligence against the first defendant, with a secondary claim against the second defendant. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injury sustained during his employment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff or the first defendant should bear the costs incurred by the second defendant in the proceedings, and whether any other orders as to costs between the parties should be made. The court had to consider the statutory provisions of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2002 (Qld), which affected the making of costs orders in proceedings involving claims for workers' compensation.

The court held that, given the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant, and the statutory framework governing workers' compensation claims, the appropriate approach was to apportion the costs incurred by the second defendant between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The court reasoned that both the plaintiff and the first defendant had contributed to the proceedings, and thus, should share the costs incurred by the second defendant. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay 50 per cent of the second defendant’s costs, and the first defendant pay the remaining 50 per cent, on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff pay 50 per cent of the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on the standard basis.

2. The first defendant pay 50 per cent of the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on the standard basis.

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:	Digby v The Compass Institute Inc and another [No 2] [2015] QSC 361
PARTIES:	MELANIE DIGBY (plaintiff) v THE COMPASS INSTITUTE INC (ABN 74 168 383 378) (first defendant) and STATE OF QUEENSLAND (second defendant)
FILE NO:	SC No 3490 of 2013
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for Costs
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 December 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6, 11, 12, 18 November 2015
JUDGE:	Atkinson J
ORDER:	1. The plaintiff pay 50 per cent of the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on the standard basis. 2. The first defendant pay 50 per cent of the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	· PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – CO-DEFENDANTS – where the plaintiff brought a claim primarily in negligence against the first defendant and the second defendant – where the first defendant had been the plaintiff’s employer and was represented in the proceedings by its insurer, WorkCover – where the parties had each made offers of settlement prior to the trial, none of which was accepted – where the plaintiff was successful against the first defendant – where the plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant was dismissed – where the quantum of damages awarded to the plaintiff at trial was greater than the first defendant’s final offer but less than the plaintiff’s final offer – where provisions of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2002 (Qld) affected the making of any costs orders – whether the plaintiff or first defendant should pay the second defendant’s costs of the proceedings – whether any other orders as to costs as between the parties should be made Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 353 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 233, s 292, s 315, s 316, s 316A, s 318A, s 318B, s 318D, s 318E Duong v Versacold Logistics Ltd [2011] QSC 35 Gould v Vaggelas (1984) 157 CLR 215 Lackersteen v Jones[No 2] (1988) 93 FLR 442 Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330 Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Co [1903] 2 KB 533
COUNSEL:	GR Mullins with JM Harper for the plaintiff BF Charrington for the first defendant MT O’Sullivan for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	Maurice Blackburn for the plaintiff MacDonnells Law for the first defendant Crown Solicitor for the second defendant