Muckermann v Skilled Group Limited (No 2) - [2013] QSC 194

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Muckermann v Skilled Group Limited & Anor (No 2) [2013] QSC 194

PARTIES:

Lawrence Muckermann

(Plaintiff)

V

Skilled Group Limited (ACN 005 585 81)

(First Defendant)

And

Vinidex Pty Ltd (ACN 000 664 942)

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO:

S446 of 2011

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

18 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

Written submissions

JUDGE:

North J

ORDER:

1. The Respondent (First Defendant) pay the Applicant's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – JURISDICTION – GENERAL – where the plaintiff’s application for a declaration was granted – where the plaintiff has sought costs of the application – where the application for costs is opposed by the defendant on the ground there is no power to make an order for costs against it – whether s 316(1) and s 318C of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) applies to the plaintiff’s application so as to exclude the Court’s general discretion to award costs under r 681 of the Uniform CivilProcedure Rules 1999

LEGISLATION:

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

CASES:

Artahs Pty Ltd v Gall Stanfield & Smith (A Firm) (2011) QSC 273

Brown v Marine Contracting Pty Ltd (ACN 010093651) & Ors (No 2) [2012] QSC 345

Hall v Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 323 340; ex parte Britt [1987] 1 Qd R 221, 226-227

Kidd v Toll North Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 220

Muckermann v Skilled Group Limited & Anor [2013] QSC 51

COUNSEL:

Mr J Greggery for the Applicant/Plaintiff

Mr K Holyoak for the Respondent/First Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Connolly Suthers Lawyers for the Applicant/Plaintiff

Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the Respondent/First Defendant

The issue is whether the plaintiff is deprived of an entitlement to costs following a successful application for a declaration by reason of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (“the Act”).

In this action the plaintiff sues his employer and another party for damages for personal injury. On 25 October 2012 he filed an application for a declaration, the respondent to the application being the first employer.

On 6 March 2013 I made the declaration and published reasons.[1] I ordered the parties make submissions in writing concerning costs.
[1] Muckermann v Skilled Group Limited & Anor [2013] QSC 51.

In my reasons[2] I summarised the essential particulars of the allegations of personal injury and its alleged cause. The claim and accompanying statement of claim were filed on 24 June 2011. Notwithstanding that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were suffered in 2007 and 2008 it was common ground that because before 1 July 2010 the plaintiff had not started proceedings for damages and a compulsory conference under Part 6 of Chapter 5 of the Act had not been held the sections concerning costs which came into force on 1 July 2010 fall to be considered.[3] In particular in the circumstance that the assessment of plaintiff’s WRI[4] was less than…

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 Muckermann v Skilled Group Limited (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Muckermann v Skilled Group Limited & Anor (No 2) [2013] QSC 194
Case: [2013] QSC 194
Decision Date: 18 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Muckermann v Skilled Group Limited (No 2), the plaintiff sought a declaration from the court, which was granted. The plaintiff subsequently sought the costs of the application, which the defendant opposed, arguing that there was no authority to order them. The central legal issue for the court was whether certain sections of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) applied to exclude the general discretion of the court to award costs under rule 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.

The court examined sections 316(1) and 318C of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) to determine if they applied to the plaintiff's application for costs. It was necessary to discern whether these provisions limited the court's ability to exercise its discretion to award costs. After careful consideration, the court concluded that these sections did not apply to the plaintiff's application, thereby upholding the court's general discretion to award costs.

Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the application. The defendant, Skilled Group Limited, was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on the standard basis. This decision underscores the importance of statutory interpretation in determining the court's jurisdiction over costs in matters involving workers' compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent (First Defendant) pay the Applicant's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.

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:	Muckermann v Skilled Group Limited & Anor (No 2) [2013] QSC 194
PARTIES:	Lawrence Muckermann (Plaintiff) V Skilled Group Limited (ACN 005 585 81) (First Defendant) And Vinidex Pty Ltd (ACN 000 664 942) (Second Defendant)
FILE NO:	S446 of 2011
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	18 July 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	Written submissions
JUDGE:	North J
ORDER:	1. The Respondent (First Defendant) pay the Applicant's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – JURISDICTION – GENERAL – where the plaintiff’s application for a declaration was granted – where the plaintiff has sought costs of the application – where the application for costs is opposed by the defendant on the ground there is no power to make an order for costs against it – whether s 316(1) and s 318C of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) applies to the plaintiff’s application so as to exclude the Court’s general discretion to award costs under r 681 of the Uniform CivilProcedure Rules 1999
LEGISLATION:	Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003
CASES:	Artahs Pty Ltd v Gall Stanfield & Smith (A Firm) (2011) QSC 273 Brown v Marine Contracting Pty Ltd (ACN 010093651) & Ors (No 2) [2012] QSC 345 Hall v Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 323 340; ex parte Britt [1987] 1 Qd R 221, 226-227 Kidd v Toll North Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 220 Muckermann v Skilled Group Limited & Anor [2013] QSC 51
COUNSEL:	Mr J Greggery for the Applicant/Plaintiff Mr K Holyoak for the Respondent/First Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Connolly Suthers Lawyers for the Applicant/Plaintiff Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the Respondent/First Defendant