Matthews v Latrobe Regional Hospital (Ruling as to Costs)
Case
•
[2021] VCC 1161
•20 August 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Matthews v Latrobe Regional Hospital (Ruling as to Costs) [2021] VCC 1161
[2021] VCC 1161
20 August 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Matthews v Latrobe Regional Hospital before the Supreme Court of Victoria concerned the plaintiff's entitlement to a certificate for costs in a common law proceeding for damages related to pain and suffering and pecuniary loss. The plaintiff, who had obtained alternative employment, faced the defendant's contention that the certificate should only cover the pain and suffering damages due to the settlement of the case for that aspect alone. The defendant had served Notices under the WorkCover (Litigated Claims) Legal Costs Order 2016 prior to the plaintiff engaging counsel, which only offered a pain and suffering certificate.
The court had to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to a certificate for the full legal costs incurred, considering that the defendant had issued the Notices before the plaintiff engaged counsel and that the proceeding had settled for a pain and suffering certificate only. The issue also involved whether the provisions of the WorkCover (Litigated Claims) Legal Costs Order 2016 applied in a common law context and if the plaintiff's engagement of counsel after the issuance of the Notices affected their entitlement to costs.
The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a certificate for the full legal costs incurred, as the proceeding had settled for the granting of a pain and suffering certificate only. The court reasoned that the defendant's issuance of the Notices before the plaintiff engaged counsel was not a bar to the defendant's entitlement to limit the certificate to the pain and suffering damages. The court found that the plaintiff's engagement of counsel after the Notices were served did not affect the defendant's right to limit the certificate in accordance with the settlement.
The court ordered that the defendant was not liable to pay the plaintiff’s legal costs beyond the amount covered by the pain and suffering certificate granted. This decision clarified the application of the WorkCover (Litigated Claims) Legal Costs Order 2016 in common law proceedings and the impact of the timing of legal engagement on the entitlement to costs.
The court had to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to a certificate for the full legal costs incurred, considering that the defendant had issued the Notices before the plaintiff engaged counsel and that the proceeding had settled for a pain and suffering certificate only. The issue also involved whether the provisions of the WorkCover (Litigated Claims) Legal Costs Order 2016 applied in a common law context and if the plaintiff's engagement of counsel after the issuance of the Notices affected their entitlement to costs.
The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a certificate for the full legal costs incurred, as the proceeding had settled for the granting of a pain and suffering certificate only. The court reasoned that the defendant's issuance of the Notices before the plaintiff engaged counsel was not a bar to the defendant's entitlement to limit the certificate to the pain and suffering damages. The court found that the plaintiff's engagement of counsel after the Notices were served did not affect the defendant's right to limit the certificate in accordance with the settlement.
The court ordered that the defendant was not liable to pay the plaintiff’s legal costs beyond the amount covered by the pain and suffering certificate granted. This decision clarified the application of the WorkCover (Litigated Claims) Legal Costs Order 2016 in common law proceedings and the impact of the timing of legal engagement on the entitlement to costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Limitation Periods
-
Costs
-
Admissibility of Evidence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Apostolopoulos v Victorian Workcover Authority (Ruling as to Costs) [2025] VCC 33
Cases Citing This Decision
32
Venn v VWA
[2025] VCC 610
Taleni v Victorian WorkCover Authority (Ruling as to Costs)
[2025] VCC 582
Taleni v Victorian WorkCover Authority (Ruling as to Costs)
[2025] VCC 582
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
0
Gellard v Victorian WorkCover Authority
[2017] VCC 1919
Barman v Victorian WorkCover Authority (Ruling as to Costs)
[2020] VCC 380