Peter Nicholas Moloney Trading as Moloney & Partners v The Workers Compensation Tribunal

Peter Nicholas Moloney, trading as Moloney & Partners, sought declarations that Rule 31(2) of the Workers Compensation Tribunal Rules 2009 (SA) was invalid. The Workers Compensation Tribunal was the respondent. The matter came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Doyle CJ, Anderson and Layton JJ.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the power conferred by section 88E(1)(f) of the Workers Rehabilitation Compensation Act 1986 (SA) was limited by section 88G of the same Act, what power section 88G conferred, and consequently, whether section 88G had the effect of invalidating Rule 31(2). The court was also required to determine the meaning and operation of Rule 31(2).

The court reasoned that sections 41 and 42 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) did not comprehensively regulate all matters concerning solicitor-client costs, as they assumed the existence of an entitlement to and liability for costs rather than creating them. Furthermore, these general provisions could be modified by more specific legislation. The court found that the specific scheme of the Workers Rehabilitation Compensation Act 1986 (SA) concerning costs containment, coupled with the power granted by section 88E(1)(f) to regulate costs, implied a power to regulate both the circumstances in which costs are payable and their amount. The court concluded that the power conferred by section 88G(1) had not been exercised and that Rule 31(2) was therefore valid.

The court ordered that the declarations of invalidity and ultra vires sought by the plaintiff in respect of Rule 31(2) be refused, and the proceedings were dismissed.