Hall v WorkCover Queensland - [2014] QCA 202

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hall v WorkCover Queensland [2014] QCA 202

PARTIES:

KAREN LESLEY HALL
(appellant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 12304 of 2013
SC No 5919 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and Atkinson J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

The orders made on 6 June 2014 be varied by the addition of the words, “on the indemnity basis” after the words “The respondent should pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and of the hearing below”.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – where the appellant is the widow of the deceased who died of mesothelioma – where the appellant appealed the primary judge’s finding that her dependency claim was barred by statute – where the appeal was allowed by this Court – where the appellant seeks an order that her costs of the appeal and at first instance be paid by the respondent on the indemnity basis – where the litigation represented a test case on a matter of public interest – whether it is appropriate that costs be ordered on the indemnity basis

Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc v Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd (1991) 100 ALR 568; [1991] FCA 154, cited
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11, cited
Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2005] 1 Qd R 204; [2004] QCA 325, cited

COUNSEL:

No appearance for the appellant, the appellant’s submissions were heard on the papers
No appearance for the respondent, the respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers

SOLICITORS:

Turner Freeman Lawyers for the appellant
BT Lawyers for the respondent

THE COURT: The appellant is the widow of the late Gregory Hall who died of mesothelioma on 28 May 1995. On 7 July 2011, the appellant commenced these proceedings on behalf of the deceased’s estate (the estate claim) and on behalf of the deceased’s dependents (the dependency claim). The question, “Is the [appellant’s] claim for damages as pleaded in paragraphs 7, 8, 26, 27 and 28 of the statement of claim barred by reason of s 11(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974?” was tried as a separate issue and answered in the affirmative by the primary judge on 6 December 2013. The appellant appealed against that decision. This Court allowed the appellant’s appeal on 6 June 2014.

The appellant seeks an order that her costs of the appeal and at first instance be paid by the respondent, WorkCover Queensland, on the indemnity basis. Neither party complied with paragraph 52(2) of Practice Direction 3 of 2013, which prescribes that any party “wishing to make submissions or further submissions on costs after the hearing must apply for leave to do…

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 Hall v WorkCover Queensland

Details

AGLC: Hall v WorkCover Queensland [2014] QCA 202
Case: [2014] QCA 202
Decision Date: 22 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hall v WorkCover Queensland was brought by the widow of a deceased man who died of mesothelioma. The central issue was the deceased's dependency claim which the primary judge found was barred by statute. The appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal, which then led to the widow seeking an order that her costs of both the appeal and the initial trial be paid by the respondent on an indemnity basis. The widow argued that the litigation represented a test case of significant public interest, justifying an indemnity costs order.

The court was tasked with determining whether it was appropriate to order costs on an indemnity basis. The key legal issue was whether the litigation qualified as a case of significant public interest, warranting such an order. The court considered the nature of the dispute and its broader implications, particularly given the public health implications of mesothelioma and the statutory provisions governing dependency claims. The court also assessed the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation, including the significance of the case as a test case and the public interest it represented.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the litigation indeed represented a case of significant public interest. The court found that the issues raised were of substantial public importance, particularly in the context of statutory interpretation and the rights of dependents of deceased persons who died from work-related illnesses. The court noted the importance of ensuring access to justice in such cases and the potential broader impact of the litigation on similar cases in the future. Consequently, the court deemed it appropriate to order costs on the indemnity basis, reflecting the public interest nature of the litigation.

The court varied the orders made on 6 June 2014 by adding the words "on the indemnity basis" after the words "The respondent should pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and of the hearing below." This modification ensured that the respondent was required to cover the appellant's costs comprehensively, recognising the public interest nature of the case and the importance of ensuring access to justice in similar future matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders made on 6 June 2014 be varied by the addition of the words, “on the indemnity basis” after the words “The respondent should pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and of the hearing below”.

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:	Hall v WorkCover Queensland [2014] QCA 202
PARTIES:	KAREN LESLEY HALL (appellant) v WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 12304 of 2013 SC No 5919 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	22 August 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and Atkinson J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	The orders made on 6 June 2014 be varied by the addition of the words, “on the indemnity basis” after the words “The respondent should pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and of the hearing below”.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – where the appellant is the widow of the deceased who died of mesothelioma – where the appellant appealed the primary judge’s finding that her dependency claim was barred by statute – where the appeal was allowed by this Court – where the appellant seeks an order that her costs of the appeal and at first instance be paid by the respondent on the indemnity basis – where the litigation represented a test case on a matter of public interest – whether it is appropriate that costs be ordered on the indemnity basis Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc v Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd (1991) 100 ALR 568; [1991] FCA 154, cited Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11, cited Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2005] 1 Qd R 204; [2004] QCA 325, cited
COUNSEL:	No appearance for the appellant, the appellant’s submissions were heard on the papers No appearance for the respondent, the respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers
SOLICITORS:	Turner Freeman Lawyers for the appellant BT Lawyers for the respondent