Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No 2)

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No 2) [2019] ICQ 22

PARTIES:

STEPHEN ROYCE

(appellant)

v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND (DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL)

(respondent)

FILE NO:

C/2018/27

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

12 December 2019

HEARING DATE:

Written submissions received on 3 December 2019 and 4 December 2019

MEMBER:

Martin J, President

ORDERS:

1.    The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to appeal on the Supreme Court Scale.

2.    If the parties do not agree on the amount of the costs the subject of this order by 24 January 2020, then the costs are to be assessed within 14 days of 24 January 2020.

3.    Any costs agreed, or assessed, are to be paid within 30 days of agreement or assessment.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – COSTS – where the appellant’s application to appeal did not satisfy the requirements of an appeal and was one in which he sought to reargue matters which had been agitated in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission – where the respondent submits that the appellant filed the application to appeal vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or, alternatively, it would have been reasonably apparent that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success – whether the appellant ought to pay the costs incurred by the respondent

Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 545

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011

CASES:

Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) [2019] ICQ 19, related

APPEARANCES:

Appellant in person

M Spry instructed by G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the respondent

Judgment in this matter was given on 29 November 2019. The parties sought time to provide written submissions on the question of costs. The respondent seeks an order for costs.
The general rule in the Court is that a person bears his or her own costs in relation to a proceeding. But the Court may order a party to the proceeding to pay the costs incurred by another party if the Court is satisfied that the party made the application vexatiously or without reasonable cause or that it would have been reasonably apparent to the party that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.[1]
[1] Industrial Relations Act 2016 s 545.
The respondent submits that the appellant filed the application to appeal vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or, alternatively, it would have been reasonably apparent that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
As I observed in the reasons I gave,[2] Mr Royce’s application to appeal did not comply with either the Industrial Relations Act 2016 or the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011. Leave was not sought to appeal on grounds other than error of law or excess, or want, of jurisdiction and Mr Royce’s argument consisted mostly of an attempt to revisit and reargue matters which had been agitated in the Commission. Mr Royce has taken the same approach in his submissions on costs. Rather than concentrate on the application to appeal and the issues which arise under s 545 of the Industrial Relations Act, he has returned to the allegations which he made during the hearing in the Commission.
[2] [2019] ICQ 19.
This was a case which did not satisfy the basic requirements of an appeal and was one in which Mr Royce sought to reargue matters rather than attempt to identify errors. It was one in which it would have been reasonably apparent that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.
I order that Stephen Royce pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to appeal on the Supreme Court Scale. If the parties do not agree on the amount of the costs the subject of this order by 24 January 2020, then the costs are to be assessed within 14 days of 24 January 2020. Any costs agreed, or assessed, are to be paid within 30 days of agreement or assessment.

In this case, Royce, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to the Industrial Court. The State of Queensland, represented by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, was the respondent. The appellant's application to appeal was found to be deficient as it did not meet the necessary requirements for an appeal and essentially aimed to reargue points that had already been considered by the Commission. The respondent argued that the appellant's application was either vexatious or made without reasonable cause, or, alternatively, that it was apparent the appeal had no reasonable chance of success.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant should be held liable for the costs incurred by the respondent due to the filing of the appeal. The court considered whether the appellant's application was frivolous or without merit and if the respondent had a reasonable expectation that the appeal would not succeed. The court had to weigh the arguments made by the respondent regarding the nature of the appellant's application and the implications for the judicial process.

The court concluded that the appellant's application did not meet the criteria for a valid appeal and was, in fact, vexatious or without reasonable cause. The court found that the respondent would have reasonably expected the appeal to be unsuccessful. Consequently, the court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs incurred in relation to the appeal application, in accordance with the Supreme Court Scale. If the parties could not agree on the amount of the costs by a specified date, the costs were to be assessed and paid within a stipulated timeframe.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No 2) [2019] ICQ 22
PARTIES:	STEPHEN ROYCE (appellant) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL) (respondent)
FILE NO:	C/2018/27
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	12 December 2019
HEARING DATE:	Written submissions received on 3 December 2019 and 4 December 2019
MEMBER:	Martin J, President
ORDERS:	1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to appeal on the Supreme Court Scale. 2. If the parties do not agree on the amount of the costs the subject of this order by 24 January 2020, then the costs are to be assessed within 14 days of 24 January 2020. 3. Any costs agreed, or assessed, are to be paid within 30 days of agreement or assessment.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – COSTS – where the appellant’s application to appeal did not satisfy the requirements of an appeal and was one in which he sought to reargue matters which had been agitated in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission – where the respondent submits that the appellant filed the application to appeal vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or, alternatively, it would have been reasonably apparent that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success – whether the appellant ought to pay the costs incurred by the respondent Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 545 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011
CASES:	Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) [2019] ICQ 19, related
APPEARANCES:	Appellant in person M Spry instructed by G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the respondent