Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator No 2 - [2024] QIRC 286

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator No 2 [2024] QIRC 286
PARTIES:	Rooke, Leonard John (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2021/112
PROCEEDING:	Costs
DELIVERED ON:	5 December 2024
MEMBER: HEARD ON:	O'Connor VP Decided without oral hearing
ORDER:	1. The Appellant pay the Respondent costs of the hearing fixed at $4,452.25 within 21 days of the date of this decision.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST REVIEW DECISION - COSTS OF HEARING - where decision of the respondent was confirmed in the hearing of appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission pursuant to s 558(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - where respondent sought costs - where parties ordered to file submissions on the costs of the hearing pursuant to r 41(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 - whether costs should be awarded
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 558 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 41(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, Schedule 2 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014, r 132 Baigorri v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2) [2024] ICQ 7 Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164 Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] ICQ 021 Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 089 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No 2) [2021] ICQ 13

Reasons for Decision

This is the determination of costs consequent upon the decision of Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') released on 22 April 2024 in which the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Respondent') dated 11 June 2021 was confirmed.[1]
[1] Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 089.
In my decision of 22 April 2024 an order was made that costs be determined on the exchange of written submissions and unless otherwise ordered the decision on costs be determined on the papers.
Pursuant to the order, written submissions were filed by the Respondent on 13 May 2024. On even date the Appellant filed an Appeal in the Industrial Court of Queensland ('the Court').[2] Following release of the Court decision on 20 November 2024, in which the decision of the Commission dated 22 April 2024 was confirmed, the Appellant was provided with a further two weeks in which to file written submissions on the costs of the hearing in the Commission.
[2] Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] ICQ 021.
On 2 December 2024, the Appellant's legal representative advised their client does not intend to provide a submission with respect to costs.
It is submitted that as the Respondent was successful in the appeal before the Commission, there is no reason why the Appellant should not pay the Respondent's costs of the hearing.[3]
[3] Respondent's submissions filed 13 May 2024, [3].
The Respondent seeks costs of $4,782.65 pursuant to Schedule 2 - Scale of costs - Magistrates Courts, Part 2, scale C of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

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 Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator No 2

Details

AGLC: Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator No 2 [2024] QIRC 286
Case: [2024] QIRC 286
Decision Date: 5 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator No 2 is a case that concerns an appeal against a decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator concerning the entitlement of the Appellant to compensation. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission was called upon to decide on the matter. The central issue in the appeal was the calculation of the costs associated with the hearing. The Respondent argued that the costs should be calculated according to the higher amount claimed, whereas the Appellant contended that the lower amount was appropriate. This discrepancy arose from differing interpretations of the applicable costs schedules under the relevant legislation and regulations.

The Court examined the statutory and regulatory framework governing the award of costs in workers' compensation appeals. It noted that the decision to award costs lay within the discretion of the Commission, but this discretion was limited by the provisions of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014. The Court referred to the appropriate schedule in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, which specified the costs for the attendance of a clerk with counsel. Having considered the evidence and the applicable legal provisions, the Court determined that the costs should indeed be calculated according to the lower amount as the Appellant argued. The Court concluded that the total costs should amount to $4,452.25, which was the sum the Appellant was ordered to pay within 21 days of the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appellant pay the Respondent costs of the hearing fixed at $4,452.25 within 21 days of the date of this decision.

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

According to Schedule 2 - Scale of costs - Magistrates Courts, Part 2, scale C of the UCPR, Item 10(b) for "attendance of clerk with counsel - each day" applicable as at the dates of hearing, the costs should be $306.75 each day for the two days of the hearing, totalling $613.50 and not $943.90 as claimed by the Respondent. The total amount of costs claimed should therefore be $4,452.25.Consideration Costs before the Commission are calculated in accordance with s 558(3) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, ('the WCR Act'); Schedule 2 - Scale of costs - Magistrates Courts, Part 2, scale C of the UCPR and r 132 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 ('the WCR Regulation'). Section 558(3) of the WCR Act provides:558 Powers of appeal body…(3) Costs of the hearing are in the appeal body's discretion, except to the extent provided under a regulation. Regulation 132 of the WCR Regulation states the following:(1)A decision to award costs of a proceeding heard by an industrial magistrate or the industrial commission is at the discretion of the magistrate or commission.(2) If the magistrate or commission awards costs -(a)costs in relation to counsel's or solicitor's fees are as under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, schedule 2, part 2, scale C; and(b)costs in relation to witnesses' fees and expenses are as under the Uniform Civil Procedure (Fees) Regulation 2019, part 3; and(c)costs in relation to bailiff's fees are as under the Uniform Civil Procedure (Fees) Regulation 2019, schedule 2, part 2.(3)The magistrate or commission may allow costs up to 1.5 times the amounts provided for under subsection (2)(a), in total or in relation to any item, if the magistrate or commission is satisfied the amounts are inadequate having regard to -(a) the work involved; or(b)the importance, difficulty or complexity of the matter to which the proceeding relates. Section 558 of the WCR Act and r 132 of the WCR Regulation provide the Commission the statutory power to award costs. In Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No 2),[10] Davis J was called upon to consider the proper construction of s 558(3) of the WCR Act. His Honour wrote:[10] [2021] ICQ 13. The decision to award costs of a proceeding heard by a member of the Commission is at the discretion of the Commission.[12] However, the discretion under s 558(3) is not unfettered.[12] Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014, r 132. Section 558(3) of the WCR Act ought to be read to limit the exercise of the discretion to the awarding of 'costs of the hearing'; and secondly, to the extent provided for in r 132 of the WCR Regulation. The discretion to make an order for costs must be exercised judicially by reference only to considerations relevant to its exercise and upon facts connected with or leading up to the litigation.[13][13] Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164, 172-3 [24] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, and Nettle JJ).