Knight v CPSM Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2021] QDC 46
•23 March 2021
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Knight v CPSM Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] QDC 46
PARTIES:
MEGAN HAZEL KNIGHT
(plaintiff)
v
CPSM PTY LTD
(defendant)
FILE NO:
4874 of 2017
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
23 March 2021
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
JUDGE:
Sheridan DCJ
ORDER:
The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings on the standard basis from 25 October 2017.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where plaintiff brought a claim under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where plaintiff’s claim dismissed – when no award of damages made – where parties ordered to make submissions on costs – whether plaintiff should pay defendant’s costs of the proceedings
LEGISLATION:
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 292, s 315, s 316
COUNSEL: Self-representation by the plaintiff
O Perkiss for the defendant
SOLICITORS:
BT Lawyers for the defendant
Reasons for decision
The substantive judgment and reasons were delivered on 5 February 2021. On that date, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.
Orders were made for the filing of a consent order by 19 February 2021 if the parties could reach agreement as to costs, and in the absence of agreement, for the filing of submissions as to costs. The orders provided for the plaintiff to file submissions by 26 February 2021, the defendant to file submissions by 5 March 2021 and the plaintiff to file any submissions in reply by 10 March 2021.
At the time of circulating the reasons, by email to the parties dated 3 February 2021, the parties were told that the submissions on costs could be filed with the court by sending a copy of the submissions to the email address of my associate.
As the plaintiff was self-represented, the lawyers acting for the defendant sent to the plaintiff by email and registered post on 10 February 2021 a copy of their outline of submissions on costs. The outline was not provided to the court at that time.
The defendant’s submissions and proposed order was sent to the court attached to an email to my associate dated 1 March 2021.
Ms Knight filed her submissions, in accordance with the order, on 26 February 2021. Ms Knight’s submissions were an annexure to an affidavit of Ms Knight sworn 26 February 2021. The four page submissions were not directed to the question as to the appropriate order as to costs but rather contained comments on the legal system, the conduct of the defendant and the defendant’s legal representatives and a list of what she described as misinterpretations in the judgment.
In reliance on s 316(2)(b) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA), in its submissions the defendant sought an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs calculated on the standard basis from 25 October 2017.
The submissions referred to the mandatory final offers having been exchanged pursuant to s 292(1) of the WCRA following the failed compulsory conference: the plaintiff’s offer being for an amount of $300,000 (clear of the WorkCover refund) and the defendant’s offer being for an amount of $30,000 (clear of the WorkCover refund of $5,902.38). The mandatory final offers were made on 25 October 2017.
The claim in the District Court was filed by the plaintiff on 19 December 2017.
Given the outcome of the proceedings, and having regard to the mandatory offers exchanged, s 316 of the WCRA requires the making of an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs on a standard basis from the date of the final offer, namely 25 October 2017.
Accordingly, an order will be made in those terms.
0
0
0