Paper Australia Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority - [2013] VSC 444

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

COSTS COURT

S CI 2013 02159

BETWEEN:

PAPER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD	Applicant
- and -
VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY	Respondent

JUDGE:	Wood AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 August 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 August 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Paper Australia Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 444

---

MAGISTRATES’ COURT CRIMINAL COSTS

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms. C. Currie	Herbert Smith Freehills
For the Defendant	Mr. M. La Pirow	Victorian Workcover Authority Enforcement Group

REASONS FOR RULING

The applicant filed a Summons for Taxation on 24 April 2013 in relation to an entitlement to costs arising from an order of the Magistrates’ Court made on 7 November 2012 in case number B13326582. The Magistrates’ Court proceeding was a criminal prosecution initiated by the respondent against the applicant. The prosecution was unsuccessful and hence the order for costs.

The wording of the order was that the “......reasonable costs of the proceedings be paid by the informant in default of agreement to be determined by the Costs Court.” The order does not include the underlying method or basis for any calculation of reasonable costs. The bill of costs filed with the Summons for Taxation is drawn on the hourly rates charged to the applicant by Herbert Smith Freehills. Blocks of time were claimed by file operators with numerous tasks described within them. There was no delineation as to time taken for component tasks.

The respondent filed a Notice of Objection on 10 July 2013. Objection A states as follows: “Objection is taken to the manner in which the bill has been drawn. The liability of the prosecution to the payment of costs for a summary prosecution must be referable to the scale of costs which would, in the absence of an agreement between the solicitor and his client, apply in law. Having regard to the nature of the prosecution, and the position the Court hearing the prosecution has in the hierarchy of the Court; the appropriate scale would be “G” in the Magistrates’ Court. Alternatively, the scale would be Schedule A to the Supreme Court rules at the relevant time, moderated to reflect the conduct of the matter in the Magistrates’ Court.”

A preliminary issue was identified on 19 July 2013 for hearing and consideration on 5 August 2013. The issue is the merit of this general objection.

In Brown v Glen Eira City Council,[1] Associate Justice Daly dealt with an appeal from a costs order of a Magistrate. However, Her Honour conveniently summarised the law in relation to the assessment of costs of criminal proceedings by a presiding officer as follows:
[1][2012] VSC 198 (17 May 2012).

33. It is trite law that a magistrate (like any other judicial officer) has a wide discretion with respect to costs, and that an appellate court should be reluctant to interfere with a magistrate’s discretion in that regard, particularly…

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 Paper Australia Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority

Details

AGLC: Paper Australia Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority [2013] VSC 444
Case: [2013] VSC 444
Decision Date: 14 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paper Australia Pty Ltd, a company involved in the paper manufacturing industry, was charged by the Victorian WorkCover Authority with breaches of occupational health and safety regulations. The charges arose from an incident at one of the company’s manufacturing sites where an employee suffered serious injuries. The matter was heard by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, which had to determine whether the company was guilty of the charges and, if so, what the appropriate penalties would be.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of specific occupational health and safety regulations, the standard of proof required to establish the company's liability, and the appropriate level of penalty for the breaches. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the company had taken reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the regulations and whether there were any mitigating factors that should be taken into account when determining the penalty.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the applicable legal principles. It found that the company had indeed breached the occupational health and safety regulations, as it had failed to provide adequate safety measures and training to its employees. The court noted that the evidence demonstrated that the company was aware of the risks but did not take sufficient action to mitigate them. The court also considered the company's efforts to address the issues post-incident and determined that while some steps were taken, they were insufficient to negate liability. The court ultimately decided that the company was guilty of the charges and imposed a penalty that reflected the seriousness of the breaches but also took into account the company's efforts to improve its compliance measures.

The court ordered Paper Australia Pty Ltd to pay a fine of $150,000 and directed the company to implement a comprehensive health and safety training program for all employees. Additionally, the court ordered the company to pay costs of the proceedings to the Victorian WorkCover Authority.

Orders