McGregor v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) and Peninsula Cranes & Rigging Pty Ltd
[2014] QIRC 198
•28 November 2014
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
| CITATION: | McGregor v Simon Blackwood (Workers' | ||
| Compensation Regulator) and Peninsula Cranes | |||
| & Rigging Pty Ltd [2014] QIRC 198 | |||
| PARTIES: | McGregor, Rowan | ||
| (Appellant) | |||
| v | |||
| Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) | |||
| (First Respondent) | |||
| and | |||
| Peninsula Cranes & Rigging Pty Ltd | |||
| (Second Respondent) | |||
| CASE NO: | WC/2013/330 | ||
| PROCEEDING: | Application for Costs | ||
| DELIVERED ON: | 28 November 2014 | ||
| HEARING DATES: | 10 September 2014 (Appellant's submissions) | ||
| 21 October 2014 (First Respondent's submissions) 21 October 2014 (Appellant's submissions in | |||
| reply) | |||
| MEMBER: | Industrial Commissioner Thompson | ||
| ORDERS: |
|
Appellant in the sum of $2,283.00.
2. Peninsula Cranes & Rigging Pty Ltd to pay the costs of the Appellant in the sum of $2,283.00.
3. The costs are to be paid within 21 days of the release of this decision.
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPLICATION FOR COSTS - Regulator conceded Appeal prior to hearing - hearing dates vacated - Application for costs - awarding costs discretionary - costs awarded to Appellant - costs to be paid within 21 days. |
| CASES: | Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act |
| 2003, s 558 (3) | |
| Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation | |
| Regulation 2003 , Regulation 113 | |
| Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 Uniform Civil Procedure (Fees) Regulation 1999 | |
| Kenneth Hill v Q-COMP (2008) 190 QGIG 7 Andrew Cuttler v Q-COMP (2009) 190 QGIG 9 | |
| Jill Panas AND Q-COMP (WC/2010/78) - Decision | |
| Kylie Reed v Q-COMP and Another (2009) 192 QGIG 99 | |
| Kenneth Groth v Simon Blackwood (Workers' | |
| Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 132 | |
| APPEARANCES: | Mr A. Taylor of North Coast Law for the Appellant. Mr P. O'Neill, Counsel directly instructed by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the First Respondent. |
| Decision |
Background
[1] Rowan McGregor (Appellant) lodged with the Industrial Registrar a Notice of Appeal pursuant to s 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against a decision of the Q-COMP Review Unit (Q-COMP) released on 23 September 2013. Since the filing of the Appeal, a number of amendments have been made to the Act which include the Respondent to the Appeal being abolished and from 29 October 2013, the new name replacing Q-COMP is that of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (the Regulator) who, in turn, becomes a Respondent to the Appeal.
[2] The decision of the Regulator was to vary the decision of WorkCover Queensland (WorkCover) to accept Brown Topia's (Topia) application for workers' compensation in accordance with s 11 of the Act. It was determined that Topia's contract of employment was with the Appellant and not Peninsula Cranes and Rigging Pty Ltd (Peninsula).
[3] Directions were issued in relation to the substantive matter by Vice President Linnane on 24 October 2013, with further directions on 25 March 2014 and 4 June 2014, with the matter being set down for hearing on 11 and 12 September 2014 in Nambour.
[4] A Decision was issued by Deputy President Kaufman on 25 March 2014 in which Peninsular sought, and was granted, leave to appear and be heard in the substantive matter.
[5] On 8 September 2014 correspondence was received by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) from the Regulator in which it was advised, amongst other things, that it was the intention of the Regulator to concede the Appeal and the hearing dates be vacated. The Appellant indicated that, as a consequence, they would be seeking costs from both the Regulator and Peninsula. It was decided that the issue of costs would be dealt with "on the papers" and the Commission issued dates by which the parties were to provide submissions.
Relevant Legislation
[6] Section 558(3) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) states:
"Costs of the hearing are in the appeal body's discretion, except to the extent
provided under regulation".
[7] The relevant regulation, being Regulation 113 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 (the Regulations), provides:
"113 Costs - proceeding before industrial magistrate or industrial
commission
(1) The costs of a proceeding before an industrial magistrate or the industrial commission are in the discretion of the magistrate or commission. (2) However, if the magistrate or commission allows costs -
(a) for costs in relation to counsel’s or solicitor’s fees - (i) the costs are to be under the Uniform Civil Procedure
Rules 1999, schedule 3, scale E…"
Submissions
Appellant
[8] The submission for the Appellant in the first instance provided a chronology of events relevant to the Application for Costs:
23 October 2012 Topia sustained a serious brain injury whilst working
on the Kilcoy Water Treatment Plant (KWTP); a claim for workers' compensation was accepted by WorkCover naming
Peninsular as the employer; Peninsular on 31 May 2013 sought a review of the WorkCover decision; the Regulator on 23 September 2013 issued a decision confirming Topia's status as an employee but concluded the Appellant was the employer; and the Appellant appealed the Regulator's decision.
[9] Procedural orders were made by the Commission on 24 October 2013 relating to the conduct of the case and included matters pertaining to:
disclosure; exchange of witness lists; and hearing dates.
Peninsular on 25 March 2014 had an application to appear and be heard in the substantive matter granted.
[10] On 21 March 2014 the Appellant retained Mr W. Walsh of Counsel for the purposes of the hearing and undertook a series of briefings in the immediate two to three days following his retention.
[11] On 25 March 2014 the Commission issued Further Directions Orders relating to Peninsula's involvement, in particular relating to disclosure of documents and for the hearing scheduled on 7 to 9 April 2014 in Brisbane.
[12] On 26 March 2014 disclosure was effected by the Appellant to Peninsular and by Peninsula to the Appellant including the exchange of documents.
[13] Preparation by the Appellant for the conduct of the hearing included:
taking of witness statements; consideration of a significant amount of material from the accident; and detailed consideration of the relevant law.
[14] On 7 April 2014 (the first day of hearing) the Principal Director of Peninsular was not in attendance and despite Peninsular being represented by Counsel and a Solicitor, the matter was adjourned by consent with Peninsula agreeing to pay the Appellant's costs thrown away for the abortive hearing. The matter was subsequently rescheduled to be heard at Nambour on 11 September 2014.
[15] The Regulator indicated on 29 August 2014 of the intention to no longer resist appeal.
[16] It was common ground the Appeal should succeed with the only issue remaining being one of the Appellant's legal costs.
[17] Regulation 113 of the Regulations is the relevant legislation on the issue of costs. The awarding of costs is discretionary.
[18] In the case of Hill v Q-COMP[1] Vice President Linnane at paragraph 8 stated:
"Q-Comp has done nothing to disentitle it to costs, which in the ordinary
course of things, follows the event."[1]
[19] On 14 October 2013 the Regulator advised the Appellant by email that if they were successful in the Appeal, it reserved the right to seek an order for costs.
[20] On 27 November 2013 the Solicitors acting on behalf of the Appellant advised the Regulator that the Regulator's position was poor and of the fact the Appellant had been incurring considerable costs which would sought to be recovered if the Appeal was successful.
[21] The Regulator conceded the Appeal but could have done so many months earlier. The Appellant had done nothing to disentitle himself to costs.
[22] Costs were sought in favour of the Appellant against the Regulator and Peninsula calculated under Schedule 3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. The costs sought in no way reflects the true costs incurred by the Appellant:
AGAINST THE REGULATOR:
Item 1 - Instructions to sue (this covers the taking of initial instructions, advising on the prospects and the drafting and filing and serving of the Appeal documents) - $825;
Item 11(a)(i) - Requesting disclosure - $284; Item 11(a)(ii) - Making disclosure - $555; Item 5 - Preparing for trial Counsel engaged - $2,505;
Item 7 - Solicitor on hearing (this reflects the hearing on costs now being conducted by way of these written submissions) - $910; and
AGAINST PENINSULA:
Item 10 - Applications to court (this for the application to be a
party to the matter) - $383; Item 11(a)(i) - Requesting disclosure - $284; Item 11(a)(ii) - Making disclosure - $555.
Regulator
[23] The submissions for the Regulator contained a supporting affidavit sworn by Ruth Jamieson (Jamieson) on 20 October 2014. Jamieson is known to the Commission as employee of the Regulator. In the affidavit Jamieson affirmed that she had knowledge and the present conduct of the Appeal file. Upon perusal of the Regulator's file, she provided a summary of related events to date:
Regulator served with Notice of Appeal on 9 October 2013. Appeal set for hearing on 7, 8, 9 April 2014 at first mention on 24
October 2013. On 27 November 2013 Appellant's solicitors forwarded a list of
documents and witnesses (earlier than required). On 15 January 2014 the Regulator forwarded a list of documents to the
solicitors for the Appellant.
Also on 15 January 2014 Jamieson forwarded (on behalf of the Regulator) correspondence to solicitors for Peninsula which put them on notice that the Regulator was reconsidering its position and may concede the Appeal.
On 7 March 2017 the Regulator advised Peninsula of their intention to concede the Appeal with an invitation to become involved in the Appeal if they disagreed with the decision.
On 7 March 2014 the Regulator informed both the Commission and the Appellant the Regulator did not intend calling any witnesses to give evidence at the hearing of the Appeal in April 2014.
On 18 March 2014 Peninsula filed their application with the Industrial
Registry to be heard.
There was a mention in the Commission in relation to the substantive appeal on 18 March 2014 that was attended by Peninsula's Counsel, the Appellant's solicitor and Jamieson for the Regulator.
Peninsula's application was heard and approved on 21 March 2014
(decision released 25 March 2014). On 19 March 2014 the Regulator received correspondence from the
Appellant's solicitors;Note: The correspondence raised issue with the actions of the Review
Officer, concluding with the following commentary:"In other words as we see it the review officer applied law that was not current and because that was her sole way of arriving at her decision then the decision is fundamentally flawed.
We thought it appropriate to explore the issue with you prior to hearing with a view to some form of agreed resolution of the matter. At this stage our client's costs are modest but they will increase substantially if appearance on Friday and the hearing are required.
We would be pleased to discuss the matter further with you."
The hearing commenced on 7 April 2014 but was adjourned at the request of Peninsula who was ordered to pay cots thrown away to the parties.
The Appeal was subsequently listed for a resumed hearing on 11 and
12 September 2014. On 27 August 2014 the parties received email correspondence from
Peninsula's solicitors which informed:"…we presently anticipate receiving instructions to no longer
represent Peninsula Cranes and Rigging Pty Ltd in relation to this
matter".
On 28 August 2014 the parties received further email correspondence from Peninsula's solicitors indicating they would no longer be participating in the Appeal. The advice stated:
"As you are aware Peninsula is not a party to the appeal. It is
merely a party that has been given leave to be heard at the appeal.We are instructed that Peninsula no longer wishes to participate in the appeal.
Whether the appeal proceeds to a hearing is a matter for the actual parties to the appeal, being the Regulator and the Appellant."
On 29 August 2014 Jamieson on behalf of the Regulator forwarded a Consent Order to solicitors for the Appellant indicating their intention to concede the Appeal.
Note: a copy of the Consent Order was attached to Jamieson's affidavit
[RJ15]. The terms were set out as follows:1. That the Appeal be allowed.
2. That the review decision of 18 September 2013 (review number 35428) be set aside.
3. That the insurer decision of 1 March 2013 in relation to claim and reference number S12AW013556 be reinstated in so far as Peninsula Cranes and Rigging Pty Ltd is Mr Topia's employer at the time of his claimed injury.
4. Each party bear their own costs of the Appeal.
The Consent Order, whilst signed on behalf of the Regulator on 29
August 2014, bore no such signature from the Appellant.
[24] The submission identified the power of the commission to award costs at s 558(3) of the Act in addition to the application of r 113 of the Regulations.
[25] The Regulator accepted the accuracy of the Appellant's background to the Appeal as to costs but opposes the application and submits each party should bear their own costs.
[26] The solicitors for the Appellant would have been clear from their involvement in the matter that in March 2014 the Regulator was not intending to call any witnesses and were not intending to defend the Appeal. At 19 March 2014 the Regulator was informed by the Appellant's solicitors that his costs at that time were modest.
[27] On 21 March 2014 at the hearing of Peninsula's application for a right to be heard, there was no doubt about the position of the Regulator with the submission referring to transcript from that hearing and in doing so identifying passages said to be pertinent:
"At T. 1-8, ll. 28 Mr Sapsford appearing for the Regulator notes that the Regulator has indicated its intention to play no further part in the resistance of this appeal. He went on to not that this extended to the application for a right to be heard;
At T. 1-9, ll. 34-38 Mr Sapsford again notes the change of position by the Regulator and that the Regulator would no longer take an active party in the resistance of the appeal;
At T. 1-9, ll. 40-47 Mr Sapsford noted that it was not until the Respondent informed Peninsula that there was a realistic possibility that the Regulator might concede, that the need for Peninsula to become involved crystallised;
At T. 1-10, ll 8-10 Mr Sapsford notes the earlier mentioned correspondence from 15 January 2014 when Peninsula's solicitors were put on notice that there was a possibility that the Regulator was not going to continue to defend the appeal."
[28] There was no doubt the Appellant or his solicitor would have known about the position of the Regulator that in effect on 21 March 2014 the Regulator effectively conceded the Appeal. Upon advice from Peninsula that they no longer intended to have a role in the hearing of the Appeal, the Regulator immediately conceded the Appeal.
[29] In reference to the statutory role of the Regulator, the functions and powers of the Regulator includes, inter alia, to undertake reviews of decisions made under Chapter 13, Part 2 and manage Appeals under Chapter 13, Part 3 of the Act. The Regulator therefore had a statutory obligation to defend the present Appeal.
[30] The Regulator had acted as a model litigant to investigate the circumstances of the Appellant's claim and act at an early stage to concede the Appeal to ensure the Appellant's costs were minimised.
[31] The matter of Cuttler v Q-COMP[2] was cited in respect of costs incurred from the public purse suggesting the comments of Deputy President Bloomfield should apply with equal force in the present case:
"However, the Commission also has a duty to act in the public interest and to take into account not only the interests of an appellant such as Mr Cuttler but also someone like Q-Comp which, in a sense, is guardian of the public purse. Money it expends in defending matters like this, in coming down to the Commission time and time again, is wasted money from the taxpayers' point of view."
[2]
[32] Noting the usual approach is this jurisdiction of costs following the event it was submitted the Commission exercise its discretion not to award costs thus departing from the usual approach.
[33] The application for costs by the Appellant against the Regulator was:
an attempt to cynically double or triple dip; and an attempt to go after the party it perceives to have the deepest pockets.
[34] The impression was clearing in March 2014 at a time when the Appellant's costs were said to be modest that the Regulator had not intended to call witnesses and must have been adopting a certain stance towards the Appeal and was further clarified by very clear statements from the Regulator's Counsel on 21 March 2014 where on no less than three occasions Deputy President Kaufman was informed the Regulator was not intending to take any active part in the proceedings.
[35] Any costs that the Appellant had been incurred up to the hearing had been compensated for by the order made by DP Kaufman on 7 April 2014.
[36] Costs incurred since 21 March 2014 by the Appellant was as a consequence of Peninsula becoming involved in the matter and seeking to defend the review decision. If there is an entitlement to costs to the Appellant, it is clearly from Peninsula who have caused the majority of the costs sought.
[37] They submitted that given that:
"the Respondent had given a clear indication at an early stage that it was undertaking further investigations to consider whether it should concede the appeal; the Appellant was on notice from 21 March 2014 at a time when his costs were 'modest' that the Respondent did not intend to defend the appeal; the costs incurred by the Appellant for preparing for the hearing have been instigated by Peninsula, it is Peninsula that should be responsible for those costs."
[38] The appropriate order as between the Regulator and the Appellant is that each party bear their own costs.
[39] This cost argument has potential ramifications wider than this case in that it could lead to a significant disincentive for the Regulator to act at any early stage to concede appeals if months down the track it still faces claims for substantial costs from an Appellant.
[40] In the matter of Panas v Q-COMP[3] it was considered relevant in that matter to determine that it was not appropriate to order costs against the Respondent, which applies with equal force to the present matter.
[3][41] The quantification of the Appellant's costs were said to have a number of difficulties which included:
Item 1 - instructions to sue. This was intended to apply in the Magistrates Court where a detailed claim and statement of claim that pleads the course of action are to be prepared. In this jurisdiction there are no pleadings and traditionally this amount has not been allowed in costs arguments before the Commission. In this particular matter the grounds for appeal relied on the content of three sentences [see RJ1];
if the Commission was minded to award costs the Regulator would not
dispute the claims for disclosure under Item 11 of the scale; the claim under item 5(a) of the scale regarding trial preparation was
incurred as a result of Peninsula's involvement from 21 March 2014; the claim for Item 7 was directed at a trial appearance and not
preparation of submission and was therefore not appropriate;
in any event the Appellant's solicitor should only be entitled to the cost of this application if his client is substantially successful in obtaining the costs sought;
if the Commission was minded to award costs it should be in the
following form:
Item 11(a)(i) $284.00 Item 11(a)(ii) $555.00 Total $839.00
An award of this nature would be consistent with Reed v Q-COMP and
4
Another .
[42] In conclusion it was stated that the Appellant and the Regulator each bear their own costs.
[43] That the following order be made:
"the Appellant has been on notice for some time that the Respondent did
not intend to defend the appeal; the Appellant already has a costs order in its favour against Peninsula for the adjourned hearing which would have included the costs of preparation. The Appellant is now attempting to double dip; the Appellant has a right of recovery against Peninsula, and it is actually Peninsula in seeking to maintain the defence of the review decision that has caused the Appellant to incur the costs."
[44] If the Regulator is successful in opposing the application it would be appropriate for costs to be awarded to the Regulator under Item 10 - "Applications to the Court" in the sum of $383.00.
[45] Alternatively, if the Commission is minded to make an award of costs to the Appellant, it be in the amount of $839.00.
Appellant in Reply
[46] Despite the Regulator's contention that the Appellant knew or should have known at a stage in the proceedings that the Regulator was intending to concede the Appeal at no time did the Regulator (who attended the hearing on 7 April 2014) formally concede the Appeal until 29 August 2014.
[47] It had been open to the Regulator to formally concede the Appeal and allow Peninsula to deal with it. Instead the Regulator continued to participate until Peninsula withdrew effectively prolonging the proceedings and increasing the costs.
[48] The contention of the Regulator of the Appellant being compensated for costs up to 7 April 2014 was not correct as the sum of $3,000 was paid by Peninsula was for costs thrown away for the day and did not relate to costs associated with preparation for hearing.
Peninsula
[49] Peninsula was never a party to the proceedings but simply on 21 March 2014 granted leave to appear and be heard in Appeal matter WC/2013/330.
[50] On the Application for Costs there were no submissions received on behalf of Peninsula.
[51] On 9 September 2014 a person purporting to be Gary Glover contacted my Associate and provided advice to the effect:
"Peninsula Cranes is now in the hands of liquidators and he would pass on
information regarding the costs arguments to them".
Conclusion
[52] Upon the lodgement of the Notice of Appeal by the Appellant on 9 October 2013 there were effectively two parties to the proceedings being the Appellant and the Regulator. On 7 March 2014 the Regulator advised Peninsula of their intention to concede the Appeal with an invitation to Peninsula to become involved in the Appeal if they were dissatisfied with the Regulator's decision.
[53] On 18 March 2014 Peninsula filed an Application to be heard (WC/2014/86) which was heard by DP Kaufman on 21 March 2014. In granting the Application by way of a Decision from the Bench, DP Kaufman stated:
"…I am satisfied that I ought exercise my discretion to allow Peninsula Cranes
& Rigging Proprietary Limited to be heard. It is a somewhat unusual application, I gather, in that it's a question of who is the putative employer, either Peninsula or Mr McGregor. Peninsula' interests are obviously impacted, for the reasons given by Mr Messina. The other elements to which I need have regard in exercising my discretion appear to me to have been met."
[54] Apart from advising Peninsula on 7 March 2014 of the intention to concede the Appeal the Regulator informed both the Appellant and the Commission that they did not intend calling witness evidence at the hearing of the Appeal in April 2014.
[55] The Regulator at this point remained a party to the proceedings.
[56] The Regulator had argued in this application that the advice to the Appellant regarding the intention not to call witness evidence was sufficient for them to form a view that the Regulator was in essence conceding the Appeal even though no formal advice was forthcoming from the Regulator (at that time) of the intention to concede the Appeal.
[57] I do not accept the argument of the Regulator that the failure to call witness evidence automatically delivers the message that an Appeal is to be conceded.
[58] In the matter of Groth v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[5] before the Commission (as constituted), Counsel for the Regulator at the conclusion of the Appellant's evidentiary case informed the Commission and the Appellant (for the first time) of their intention not to call witness evidence despite having previously, in accordance with Directions, provided a list of witnesses to be called by them in the proceedings. The Regulator did not concede the Appeal and went on to make submissions in the proceedings with the Appeal ultimately being rejected.
[5][59] The Regulator attended the substantive hearing of the Appeal on 7 April 2014 and whilst the proceedings were adjourned at the request of Peninsula the Regulator did not concede the Appeal at this time.
[60] In respect of costs for 7 April 2014 they were ordered by consent on the basis of costs thrown away with DP Kaufman in an Order released on 7 April 2014 stating:
"Peninsula Cranes and Rigging Pty Ltd pay Rowan McGregor and Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) costs thrown away as a result of the adjournment on 7 April 2014 in an amount to be agreed by the parties."
[61] According to the Appellant the Costs Order for 7 April 2014 was for the sum of $3,000 and represented costs thrown away for that day and did not account for expenses for preparation of the hearing which is a position readily accepted by the Commission.
[62] The Regulator continued to remain a party to the proceedings attending directions hearing and committing to the subsequent hearing dates on 11 and 12 September 2014.
[63] The fact that the Regulator did not formally concede the Appeal at that time continued to allow the matter to remain on foot albeit the Regulator would effectively take a "step back" and it would be Peninsula who would, in a "defacto" sense act as the Respondent for the purposes of the conduct of the Appeal.
[64] If the Regulator had conceded the Appeal any time prior to the advice from Peninsula's lawyers on 28 August 2014 that Peninsula were no longer wishing to participate in the Appeal it would undoubtedly have left Peninsula exposed without the option to preserve the interests of the business.
[65] The decision of the Regulator not to formally concede prior to 29 August 2014 does not suffer criticism from the Commission in that in the circumstances their actions were based on sound principles in relation to the interests of Peninsula. Nevertheless the consequences of the Regulator's actions were that the Appellant was required to undertake all the necessary preparation for the hearing, scheduled for 11 and 12 September 2014 including the retaining and briefing of Counsel and all other costs associated with that preparation.
[66] The conceding of the Appeal by the Regulator on 29 August 2014 meant that the Appeal was allowed and the decision of the Review Unit of 18 September 2013 was set aside.
[67] In accordance with s 558(3) of the Act it is my intention to exercise my discretion and make an award of costs to the Appellant pursuant to Regulation 113 "Costs - proceeding before industrial magistrate or industrial commission" of the Regulations.
Quantum of Costs
[68] On consideration of the arguments provided in the written submissions I do not accept that the amount sought by the Appellant in the circumstances is appropriate nor is the apportionment of costs appropriate against the Regulator and Peninsula (respectively) a fair and reasonable division on whom shall be responsible for the costs to be ordered.
[69] In respect of Item 1 and Item 7 which were claimed against the Regulator, I do not propose to make an order on these items based upon the acceptance of arguments of the Regulator.
[70] In terms of the other items of the claim, I make the following orders:
Regulator
Item 11(a)(i) - Requesting disclosure - $284 Item 11(a)(ii) - Making disclosure - $555 Item 5(a) - Preparing for trial - $1,252.50 Peninsula
Item 11(a)(i) - Requesting disclosure - $284 Item 11(a)(ii) - Making disclosure - $555 Item 5(a) - Preparing for trial - $1,252.50.
[71] Whilst I have indicated, not to make an order against the Regulator in respect of Item 7 - "Solicitor on hearing" for an amount of $910 said to reflect the costs associated with the conduct of the costs application, I do however intend to make an award to the Appellant under Item 10 in the following terms relying upon a monetary amount contained in the Regulator's submissions:
Item 10 - Application to the Court (to be divided equally between the
Regulator and Peninsula [$191.50 each]) - $383.
[72] The following amounts reflect my findings and are to be paid to the Appellant by the Regulator and Peninsula within 21 days of this hearing:
Regulator - amount of $2,283.00; and Peninsula - amount of $2,283.00.
[73] I order accordingly.
Kenneth Hill v Q-COMP (2008) 190 QGIG 7
Andrew Cuttler v Q-COMP (2009) 190 QGIG 9
Jill Panas AND Q-COMP (WC/2010/78) - Decision <
4 Kylie Reed v Q-COMP and Another (2009) 192 QGIG 99
Kenneth Groth v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 132
0
1
0