Guandalini v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) - [2025] QIRC 197

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Guandalini v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2025] QIRC 197
PARTIES:	Guandalini, Anthony Carlo (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2022/73
PROCEEDING:	Costs
DELIVERED ON:	4 August 2025
HEARING DATE:	Decided without oral hearing
MEMBER:	O'Connor VP
ORDER:	1. The Appellant pay the Respondent's costs of the hearing fixed at $8,143.40 within 21 days of the date of this decision.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST REVIEW DECISION – COSTS OF HEARING – where decision of the Respondent was confirmed in the hearing of appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission pursuant to s 558(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – where Respondent sought costs – where parties ordered to file submissions on the costs of the hearing pursuant to r 41(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 – whether costs should be awarded
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 545 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 558 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 41(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, Schedule 2 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014, r 132 Baigorri v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2) [2024] ICQ 7 Guandalini v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 171 Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72. Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No 2) [2021] ICQ 13.

Reasons for Decision

This is the determination of costs consequent upon the decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission) released on 4 July 2025, in which the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Respondent') dated 25 March 2022 was confirmed.[1]
[1] Guandalini v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 171.
In my decision of 4 July 2025 an order was made that costs be determined on the exchange of written submissions unless otherwise ordered, with the decision on costs to be determined on the papers.

Pursuant to the order, written submissions were filed by the Respondent on 18 July 2025. On even date the Appellant filed their written submissions also.

It is submitted that as the Respondent was successful in the appeal before the Commission, there is no reason why the Appellant should not pay the Respondent's costs of the hearing. [2]
[2] Respondent’s submissions filed 18 July 2025, [5].
The Respondent seeks costs of $8,143.40 pursuant to Schedule 2 – scale of costs – Magistrates Courts, Part 2, scale C of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) ('the UCPR') as applying at the time of the hearing on 13,14, 15 November 2023 and 24 January 2024 as follows:

1.	Counsel's fee to appear at hearing on 13 November 2023[3]	$1,770.00
2.	Counsel's refresher fee to appear on 14,15 November 2023 & 24 January 2024 [4]	$3,546.00
3.	Attendance of clerk with Counsel on 13,14 15 November 2023 & 24 January 2024 [5]	$1288.20
4.	Disclosure – requesting…

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 Guandalini v Workers' Compensation Regulator (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: [2025] QIRC 197
Decision Date: 4 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Guandalini v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) involved an appeal by the Appellant, Guandalini, against a decision made by the Respondent, the Workers' Compensation Regulator, concerning the Appellant's entitlement to compensation. The dispute was adjudicated by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, which confirmed the Respondent's initial decision in the appeal hearing under section 558(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. Following the confirmation of the Respondent's decision, the Respondent sought costs for the hearing of the appeal.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Respondent was entitled to costs for the hearing of the appeal. The court was required to consider the relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, specifically rule 41(1), which mandates that submissions on the costs of the hearing be filed by the parties. The Appellant argued against the award of costs, while the Respondent contended that the costs should be awarded in light of the outcome of the appeal.

The court determined that the Respondent was entitled to costs for the hearing. It found that the confirmation of the Respondent's decision in the appeal justified the award of costs as per the provisions of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011. The court ordered that the Appellant pay the Respondent's costs of the hearing, which were fixed at $8,143.40, within 21 days of the date of the decision. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules in tribunal hearings and the potential implications of an unsuccessful appeal in terms of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appellant pay the Respondent's costs of the hearing fixed at $8,143.40 within 21 days of the date of this decision.

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.