Orr v Direct Couriers (Australia) Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 25 min read

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR

CITATION:Orr v Direct Couriers (Australia) Pty Ltd [2004] NSW WCC PD 28

APPELLANT:  William Douglas Orr

RESPONDENT:  Direct Couriers (Australia) Pty Ltd

INSURER:NRMA Workers Compensation (NSW) (No.2) Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER:  WCC 12768-2003 (WCC 5261-2002)

DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:          14 November 2003

DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  20 May 2004

SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Jurisdiction to appeal a decision of the Registrar; whether costs can be claimed for multiple events exceeding the maximum in Clause 119 and Schedule 6 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003.

PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:  Dr Gabriel Fleming

HEARING:On the papers

REPRESENTATION:  Appellant: Steve Masselos & Co. Solicitors

Respondent:  Bartier Perry Solicitors

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:  The decision of the Registrar is confirmed.

No order is made as to costs.

BACKGROUND

  1. On 2 December 2003 William Douglas Orr (‘the Appellant/the Worker’) filed an appeal against a decision of the Registrar (by her delegate) of the Workers Compensation Commission dated 14 November 2003.

  1. The Respondent to the Appeal is Direct Couriers (Australia) Pty Ltd (‘the Respondent’) and the relevant insurer is NRMA Workers Compensation (NSW) (No.2) Pty Ltd (‘the Insurer’).

  1. The appeal relates to an ‘Application to Resolve Dispute’ lodged by the Worker and resolved by a Commission Arbitrator on 9 April 2003.  The Certificate of Determination issued on that date, details orders, made by the consent of the parties, as to payment of weekly compensation to the Worker.  The parties then reached an agreement as to compensation for whole person impairment and pain and suffering, and registered a Section 66A Lump Sum Agreement on 20 May 2003.  The parties could not reach an agreement as to costs and requested that the matter be referred to the Registrar for a costs assessment. 

  1. The Registrar delegated the assessment of costs to an Arbitrator pursuant to section 371(2) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’). The Certificate of Determination of Applicant’s Costs, dated 14 November 2003, records the Registrar’s orders as follows:

The costs are assessed as follows:

1.The Applicant’s costs are assessed at $6,418.50 (inclusive of GST)

2.The Applicant’s costs of the Assessment are assessed at nil

No order as to costs of the assessment.

Determination
The total costs payable by the Respondent to the Applicant are therefore determined in the amount of $6,418.50 (inclusive of GST).

  1. The Appellant seeks to have the decision of the Registrar revoked and a new decision made in its place awarding him $8,143.75 in costs under the Compensation Costs Table.  The total amount in dispute in this appeal is $1,725.25.

  1. The Respondent argues that the decision should be confirmed and the Appellant pay the costs of the appeal. 

  1. The appeal was referred to me on 21 April 2004.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

  1. There are essentially two errors of law submitted by the Appellant in the appeal.  They may be summarised as follows: 

1. The Registrar, by her delegate, erred in the interpretation…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Orr v Direct Couriers (Australia) Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2004] NSWWCCPD 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Orr v Direct Couriers (Australia) Pty Ltd involves a dispute regarding the assessment of costs within the Workers Compensation Commission. The Appellant, Orr, sought to appeal the decision of the Registrar concerning the costs incurred in the proceedings. The matter was heard by the Workers Compensation Commission, which had to determine whether the appeal process outlined in Clause 119 of the Regulation was correctly applied, given the absence of any relevant provisions in the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2003. The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the appeal from the Registrar's decision on costs could be heard by a Commission constituted by a Presidential member, and if so, whether it complied with the statutory requirements.

The Commission considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant statutory provisions. It was noted that Clause 119 of the Regulation allows for an appeal against the Registrar's decision on a matter of law to the Commission constituted by a Presidential member. However, neither the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2003 nor sections 351 and 352 of the 1998 Act confer jurisdiction upon a Presidential Member to determine such matters. The Commission found that the appeal process outlined in Clause 119 was not applicable because the determination was made by the Commission constituted by the Registrar, not by an Arbitrator. Furthermore, the Registrar's determination under Clause 118 of the Regulation was binding, and no appeal or review was permissible except as provided by the Division.

Based on the reasoning above, the Commission concluded that the appeal from the Registrar's decision on costs could not be heard by a Commission constituted by a Presidential member. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar's determination regarding the costs was upheld. The Commission emphasised that the statutory framework did not support the jurisdiction of a Presidential Member to hear such appeals, and the appeal process outlined in Clause 119 did not apply in this context.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Part 19 of the Regulation (made pursuant to section 347 of the 1998 Act) provides for the determination of ‘costs’ in matters before the Commission. The process for the assessment of costs, by the Registrar, is set out at Division 4 of Part 19. Subdivision 5 of Division 4, Clause 119 provides as follows:119Appeal against decision of Registrar as to matter of law(1)A party to an application who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Registrar as to a matter of law arising in the proceedings to determine the application may, in accordance with the Rules of the Commission, appeal to the Commission constituted by a Presidential member against the decision.(2)The appeal is to be in the form approved by the Commission and be accompanied by the fee approved by the Commission from time to time.(3)After deciding the question the subject of the appeal, the Commission constituted by a Presidential member may, unless it affirms the Registrar’s decision: (a) make such determination in relation to the application as, in its opinion should have been made by the Registrar, or(b) remit its decision on the question to the Registrar and order the Registrar to re-determine the application.(4)On a re-determination of an application, fresh evidence, or evidence in addition to or in substitution for the evidence received at the original proceedings, may be given. The Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2003 do not make any provision for the making of an appeal pursuant to Clause 119 of the Regulation. The Commission does not have a prescribed form or fee for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Clause 119. The parties were invited to make submissions on the Commission’s jurisdiction under Clause 119 of the Regulation. The submissions filed did not adequately address this issue. The Appellant made lengthy submissions on the application of section 351 of the 1998 Act, ‘Reference of Question of Law on Compensation Claim to Commission Constituted by Presidential Member’, and section 352, ‘Appeal Against Decision of Commission Constituted by Arbitrator’. The Respondent submitted that where an appeal may be made pursuant to Clause 119 of the Regulation, it must also satisfy section 352(2) of the 1998 Act. Neither section 351 nor section 352 of the 1998 Act confer jurisdiction upon a Presidential Member to determine this matter. The reasons for this may be set out briefly, as follows;· The determination was made by the Commission constituted by the Registrar, (through her delegate) (pursuant to Clause 114 of the Regulation), not by the Commission constituted by an Arbitrator. · The fact that the Registrar delegated her power, under Clause 114, to an Arbitrator does not alter the constitution of the Commission for the purpose of a determination of costs pursuant to Clause 119. Sections 351 and 352 therefore are not applicable. · This reasoning is supported by the terms of Clause 118 of the Regulation, which provides that: “The Registrar’s determination of an application is binding on all parties to the application and no appeal or other review lies in respect of the determination, except as provided by this Division”. · In any event, I note that section 351 is applicable only as to a matter of law that arises ‘in proceedings’ and in this matter the proceedings have been concluded by the determination. Section 352 does not permit an appeal from an Arbitrator only in relation to costs, Sam Borg v Garnville Pty Limited [2003] NSW WCC PD 30].

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.