Fields v Berrigan (No. 2) - [2022] NSWDC 568

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fields v Berrigan & Anor (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 568
Hearing dates: 21 October 2022
Date of orders: 21 October 2022
Decision date: 21 October 2022
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
I order that each of the Plaintiff and the First Defendant is to pay his own costs of the proceedings insofar as they were a claim for work injury damages.

Catchwords:
WORK INJURY DAMAGES – COSTS – Costs in respect of a claim for work injury damages – Where two sets of proceedings on foot and one set of proceedings was dismissed.

Legislation Cited:
Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998

Cases Cited:
Chubs Constructions Pty Ltd v Chamma [2009] NSWCA 98
Fields v Berrigan & Anor (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 567
Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 345
Ortlipp v Employers Mutual NSW Limited as agent for the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (No 3) [2014] NSWDC 161
Smith v Sydney West Area Health Service (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 62

Texts Cited:
C P Mills, Workers Compensation New South Wales (2nd ed 1979, Butterworths)

Category: Costs
Parties: Plaintiff - Todd Matthew Fields
First Defendant – Paul Berrigan
Second Defendant – Tamworth Jockey Club
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff – Mr Best, M.
First Defendant – Mr Morris, P. SC
Second Defendant – Mr Stanton, D.
Solicitors:
Plaintiff – Everingham Solomons
First Defendant – McCabe Curwood
Second Defendant – Bartier Perry Lawyers

File Number(s): 2016/85305; 2022/180644
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

Background

HIS HONOUR: The current argument concerns costs following my decision in Fields v Berrigan & Anor (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 567. This is the 28th year in which I have had cause to observe that nothing excites the zeal, the ardour, and the passion of members of the legal profession more than an argument about costs. I made a number of orders in this matter on 16 September this year. In matter 2016/00085305, I ordered the Plaintiff to pay the First Defendant's costs insofar as they made a claim for damages under the Civil Liability Act 2002. On the application of the Plaintiff, I reserved costs of the Plaintiff's claim against the First Defendant in those proceedings insofar as they are a claim for work injury damages.
The course of the pleadings needs to be considered. The initiating process was filed on 18 March 2016. According to that Statement of Claim, the relief claimed was this:

"1. Work injury damages.

2. Interests pursuant to Section 151M of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

3. Costs."

The Court's file contains an Amended Statement of Claim, which has written on its coversheet the date 29 November 2016. However, the document has not passed under the seal of the Court. What did pass under the seal of the Court is a copy of the same document, the seal having been affixed on 6 April 2017. According to that Amended Statement of Claim, the relief claimed…

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 Fields v Berrigan (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Fields v Berrigan (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 568
Case: [2022] NSWDC 568
Decision Date: 21 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fields v Berrigan was a case involving the plaintiff, Mr. Fields, who sought damages for work-related injuries against the first defendant, Berrigan. The dispute involved the determination of costs associated with the proceedings, particularly those related to the claim for work injury damages. The matter was heard by the court, which needed to decide on the allocation of costs between the parties. The key legal issue was whether the costs related to the claim for work injury damages should be borne by the plaintiff, the defendant, or shared between them.

The court examined the circumstances under which the two sets of proceedings were initiated and the reasons for the dismissal of one set. It considered the principles of cost allocation in cases involving work injury damages and the relevant legal precedents. The court found that the costs associated with the claim for work injury damages should not be attributed entirely to one party but rather should be shared between the plaintiff and the first defendant. This decision was based on the fact that both parties had contributed to the litigation process and that it was not solely attributable to one party's actions.

Accordingly, the court ordered that each party was to bear their own costs related to the claim for work injury damages. This meant that neither party was required to compensate the other for the costs incurred in that particular aspect of the proceedings. The decision highlighted the importance of a balanced approach to cost allocation in cases involving work injury damages, ensuring fairness between the parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

I order that each of the Plaintiff and the First Defendant is to pay his own costs of the proceedings insofar as they were a claim for work injury damages.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Fields v Berrigan & Anor (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 568
Hearing dates:	21 October 2022
Date of orders:	21 October 2022
Decision date:	21 October 2022
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	I order that each of the Plaintiff and the First Defendant is to pay his own costs of the proceedings insofar as they were a claim for work injury damages.
Catchwords:	WORK INJURY DAMAGES – COSTS – Costs in respect of a claim for work injury damages – Where two sets of proceedings on foot and one set of proceedings was dismissed.
Legislation Cited:	Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 (NSW) Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
Cases Cited:	Chubs Constructions Pty Ltd v Chamma [2009] NSWCA 98 Fields v Berrigan & Anor (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 567 Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 345 Ortlipp v Employers Mutual NSW Limited as agent for the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (No 3) [2014] NSWDC 161 Smith v Sydney West Area Health Service (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 62
Texts Cited:	C P Mills, Workers Compensation New South Wales (2nd ed 1979, Butterworths)
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Plaintiff - Todd Matthew Fields First Defendant – Paul Berrigan Second Defendant – Tamworth Jockey Club
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff – Mr Best, M. First Defendant – Mr Morris, P. SC Second Defendant – Mr Stanton, D. Solicitors: Plaintiff – Everingham Solomons First Defendant – McCabe Curwood Second Defendant – Bartier Perry Lawyers
File Number(s):	2016/85305; 2022/180644
Publication restriction:	Nil.