Kurzman v Clyde Agriculture Limited

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE REGISTRAR IN RELATION TO COSTS

CITATION:Kurzman v Clyde Agriculture Limited [2007] NSWWCCPD 23

APPELLANT:  Lawrence James Kurzman

RESPONDENT:              Clyde Agriculture Limited

INSURERS:(a)        Allianz Australia Workers    Compensation (NSW) Limited

(b)Cambridge Integrated Services    Australia Pty Limited (formerly Vero            Workers Compensation Limited)

FILE NUMBER:  WCC17853-05

DATE OF REGISTRAR’S DECISION:             16 May 2006

DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  25 January 2007

SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Appeal against the Registrar’s Assessment of Costs; various Items in Schedule 6 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003; disbursements and costs.

PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:  Acting Deputy President Deborah Moore

HEARING:On the papers

REPRESENTATION:  Appellant:      McCabe Partners, Lawyers

Respondent:   Hunt & Hunt, Solicitors

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:  1.        The Registrar’s determination of Mr  Kurzman’s claim for costs in this   matter, dated 16 May 2006, is   amended in accordance with these   reasons.

2.        The Respondent, Clyde Agriculture   Limited in the interest of Cambridge   Integrated Services Australia Pty   Limited (formerly Vero Workers   Compensation Limited) is to pay the   Appellant, Mr Kurzman, $385.00   inclusive of GST in respect of his   costs in this appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

1. On 6 June 2006, Lawrence James Kurzman (‘Mr Kurzman’) filed an ‘Appeal Against a Costs Determination’ made by the Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) on 16 May 2006. The Respondent to the appeal is Clyde Agriculture Limited (‘Clyde’). Clyde’s insurers were firstly Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited (‘Allianz’) and secondly, Cambridge Integrated Services Australia Pty Limited (formerly Vero Workers Compensation Limited) (‘Vero’). 

1. On 30 June 2006 Clyde in the interests of Vero filed submissions in opposition to the appeal. On 22 August 2006 Mr Kurzman filed further submissions in reply.

1. Mr Kurzman commenced proceedings in the Commission on 13 September 2004 against Clyde and its two insurers.

1. A ‘Certificate of Determination’ was issued on 28 February 2004 in relation to Mr Kurzman’s claim for weekly compensation and medical expenses. That certificate noted that liability was apportioned 90% to Vero and 10% to Allianz pursuant to sections 22 and 22A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’).

The certificate also noted: “That the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.”

1. Following a Telephone conference on 8 September 2005 where, with the assistance of the Arbitrator, the parties were able to come to an agreed resolution of Mr Kurzman’s claim for benefits pursuant to section 66 and 67 of the 1987 Act, a further ‘Certificate of Determination – Consent Orders’ noted: “That the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.”

1. The Arbitrator further stated: “I certify that this is a complex matter for the purposes of the costs regulations 4.10 and 9.01, because this application has been the subject of a determination of the Commission in February 2004, and involved relatively complex legal, factual and medical issues.”

1. On 19 October 2005, the parties having failed to agree on the costs payable, Mr Kurzman’s solicitors filed an ‘Application for Assessment of Costs’ with the Commission in respect…