Habermann v Cook Shire Council

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

Habermann v Cook Shire Council [2021] QSC 172

PARTIES:

ELLANNA STORM HABERMANN

(applicant)
v
COOK SHIRE COUNCIL

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

290 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Cairns

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

21 May 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

21 May 2021

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDER:

The respondent will pay the applicant’s costs of that part of the application which related to paragraph 1(a) of its application, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. 

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – COSTS – where the applicant is a worker to whom chapter 5 part 12 division 2 Worker’s Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) applies – where section 316(1) of division 2 precludes an order about costs by the court “in the claimant’s proceeding” other than allowed under s 316 – where s 318C exists as an exception to s 316 where there is an interlocutory application – whether the “interlocutory application” referred to in s 318C is one brought in the claimant’s proceeding – whether costs should be ordered with respect to an interlocutory application for disclosure of comparative wages documents and opposing counsel’s advice – whether the application was concerned with the progression of a filed claim rather than events prior thereto – whether the application was brought because of unreasonable delay by the respondent

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 223(4)

Worker’s Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 316, s 318 C

Berhane v Woolworths Limited (No 2) [2013] QDC 208, applied
Brown v Marine Contracting Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2012] QSC 345, applied
Hinrichsen v Glencore Queensland Limited [2019] QSC 112, cited

Muckermann v Skilled Group Limited & Anor (No 2) [2013] QSC 194, applied

COUNSEL:

J Greggory QC for the applicant

R Morton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Organic Legal for the applicant
Jensen McConaghy for the respondent

The applicant plaintiff is a worker to whom chapter 5 part 12 division 2 Worker’s Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) applies, pursuant to s 315 of that Act.  Section 316(1) of division 2 precludes an order about costs by the court “in the claimant’s proceeding” other than allowed under s 316.  Section 316(2) goes on to stipulate costs orders which can be made, depending, in summary, on the outcome of the proceeding and whether or not the court’s ordered damages equals or betters the worker’s final written offer.

In an apparent exception to s 316, s 318C provides:

“An order about costs for an interlocutory application may be made under division 2 only if the court is satisfied that the application has been brought because of unreasonable delay by one of the parties.”

That s 316 speaks of costs “in the claimant’s proceeding” makes it obvious that the “interlocutory application” referred to in s 318C is one brought in the claimant’s proceeding.  As McGill DCJ put it in Berhane v Woolworths Limited (No…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Habermann v Cook Shire Council 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
[2021] QSC 172
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Habermann v Cook Shire Council involved the applicant, Habermann, seeking costs from the respondent, Cook Shire Council, in relation to an interlocutory application. Habermann was a worker to whom the Queensland Workers' Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 applied, and the dispute centred around whether the court could order costs in relation to an interlocutory application for disclosure of comparative wages documents and opposing counsel's advice. Section 316(1) of the Act generally precludes the court from ordering costs in the claimant's proceeding, except under specific circumstances outlined in section 318C. The court needed to determine whether the interlocutory application fell within the exception provided by section 318C, and if so, whether the application related to the progression of the filed claim or events prior to it. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the application was brought due to the respondent's unreasonable delay.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of section 318C and its exception to section 316. The court held that an interlocutory application for disclosure of comparative wages documents and opposing counsel's advice could indeed be considered an interlocutory application under section 318C. It was further determined that the application was related to the progression of the filed claim rather than events prior to it, and the delay in providing the documents was unreasonable. Consequently, the court found that the application met the criteria for ordering costs under the exception provided by section 318C.

The court concluded that the respondent was liable to pay the applicant's costs of that part of the application which related to paragraph 1(a) of its application, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. This decision clarified the scope of the exception in section 318C and emphasised the importance of timely disclosure in interlocutory applications within workers' compensation proceedings. The outcome provided a framework for similar cases, ensuring that parties are held accountable for unreasonable delays in providing necessary documents.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent will pay the applicant’s costs of that part of the application which related to paragraph 1(a) of its application, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

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.