Stekovic and Comcare (Compensation) - [2021] AATA 2230

Stekovic and Comcare (Compensation) [2021] AATA 2230 (9 July 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s):2020/4031
2020/5323
2020/5326

Re:Joanne Stekovic
APPLICANT

ComcareAnd
RESPONDENT

AndQueanbeyan GP Super Clinic

DECISION
Tribunal:Mr S. Webb, Member
Date:9 July 2021
Place:Canberra

The total amount payable to the Queanbeyan GP Super Clinic under regulation 13 (6) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 2015 in respect of reasonable expenses incurred complying with the Tribunal summons issued on 16 September 2020 is an amount of $376.05 plus GST.
……………….[sgd]……………..
Mr S. Webb, Member
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summons to produce – claim for recovery of costs of complying with summons – dispute over quantum – applicable principles – determination of allowance payable
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ss 40A, 67
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 2015 reg 13, 14, 15
Federal Court Rules 2011
Cases
A Pty Ltd v Z [2007] NSWSC 999
Bestt and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2017] AATA 1235
Carver and Comcare (Compensation) [2019] AATA 1534
Moorehead Nominees Pty Ltd & Others v Barclays Australia Securities Ltd & Others Unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Hill J, VG63 of 1989, 17 May 1991
X Pty Ltd and Ors & Merhi (No 2) [2015] FamCA 862
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr S. Webb, Member
9 July 2021

Joanne Stekovic applied for review of a decision Comcare made to reject her claims for compensation. In the course of the proceedings, Comcare requested a summons be issued to the Queanbeyan GP Super Clinic (Clinic) by the Tribunal calling for production of all documents and records held in respect of the applicant.
The Clinic issued a tax invoice for recovery of costs of production. The invoice amount was disputed by Comcare. It is this matter alone, about which the parties cannot agree, that is the subject of this decision.
Facts
On 16 September 2020, the Tribunal issued a summons, returnable on 6 October 2020 and requiring the Clinic to produce “all files, including computerised records, records of treatment, notes of visits and interviews, patient’s notes, correspondence, copies of correspondence, patient history cards, referrals, reports, test results or any other documentation in relation to the applicant.”
On 17 September 2020, Comcare informed the Clinic that it would reimburse reasonable expenses incurred in complying with the summons.
On 30 September 2020, the Clinic issued Comcare a tax invoice in the amount of $1,215.28, comprising $1,104.80 for photocopying 795 pages plus GST.
On 15 October 2020, the Clinic produced 462 pages of documents and records to the Tribunal.
On 13 November 2020, Comcare offered to pay the Clinic reasonable expenses incurred in complying with the summons, as follows –
• Administration fee: $35.00
• Photocopying per page: $ 0.70
• Delivery of documents: $12.60
• GST 10% of total bill
The Clinic declined this offer.
On 17 November 2020, Comcare offered to pay the Clinic an amount of $371 plus GST, based in part on photocopying 462 pages at a rate of $0.70 per…

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 Stekovic and Comcare (Compensation)

Details

AGLC: Stekovic and Comcare (Compensation) [2021] AATA 2230
Case: [2021] AATA 2230
Decision Date: 9 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned a dispute between the Queanbeyan GP Super Clinic (the Clinic) and Comcare regarding the recovery of costs incurred by the Clinic in complying with a summons issued by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The summons required the Clinic to produce various documents and records in relation to an applicant. The Clinic issued a tax invoice for $1,215.28, which Comcare disputed, offering a lesser amount of $371 plus GST. The Tribunal was asked to determine the Clinic's reasonable expenses for complying with the summons.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the amount of reasonable expenses payable to the Clinic for complying with the Tribunal's summons, pursuant to regulations 13(6) and 13(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 2015. This involved assessing whether the costs claimed by the Clinic, particularly for photocopying, were reasonable and should be reimbursed by Comcare.

The Tribunal reasoned that the allowance payable for reasonable expenses should be calculated based on the applicable regulations. While the Clinic sought reimbursement for 795 pages photocopied at $1.104 per page, Comcare's offer was based on 462 pages at $0.70 per page. The Tribunal ultimately determined that the reasonable expenses payable to the Clinic amounted to $376.05 plus GST.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Clinic issued a tax invoice for recovery of costs of production. The invoice amount was disputed by Comcare. It is this matter alone, about which the parties cannot agree, that is the subject of this decision.Facts On 16 September 2020, the Tribunal issued a summons, returnable on 6 October 2020 and requiring the Clinic to produce “all files, including computerised records, records of treatment, notes of visits and interviews, patient’s notes, correspondence, copies of correspondence, patient history cards, referrals, reports, test results or any other documentation in relation to the applicant.” On 17 September 2020, Comcare informed the Clinic that it would reimburse reasonable expenses incurred in complying with the summons. On 30 September 2020, the Clinic issued Comcare a tax invoice in the amount of $1,215.28, comprising $1,104.80 for photocopying 795 pages plus GST. On 15 October 2020, the Clinic produced 462 pages of documents and records to the Tribunal. On 13 November 2020, Comcare offered to pay the Clinic reasonable expenses incurred in complying with the summons, as follows –• Administration fee: $35.00• Photocopying per page: $ 0.70• Delivery of documents: $12.60• GST 10% of total billThe Clinic declined this offer. On 17 November 2020, Comcare offered to pay the Clinic an amount of $371 plus GST, based in part on photocopying 462 pages at a rate of $0.70 per page. Once again, the Clinic declined to accept the offer. On 21 December 2020, Comcare reiterated its offer. The Clinic adhered to its previous position and refused the offer. On 23 April 2021, the Clinic informed Comcare that the previously issued invoice in the mount of $1,215.28 was outstanding. On 30 April 2021, Comcare responded and asked the Clinic to amend its invoice. The Clinic reiterated its demand and stated that it would not adjust the invoice, and informed Comcare that if the invoice amount was not paid, the outstanding invoice would be forwarded to Ms Stekovic. On 1 June 2021, Comcare asked the Tribunal to determine the Clinic’s reasonable expenses for complying with the summons on the papers. The Clinic agreed to the matter being determined by the Tribunal on the papers. On 18 June 2021, Comcare provided written submissions addressing the reasonable expenses issue. It was Comcare’s submission that the Clinic’s reasonable expenses of complying with the summons should be calculated on the basis previously given to the Clinic. On 29 June 2021, the Clinic provided written submissions. In the Clinic’s submission, the expenses Comcare offered to reimburse were not reasonable as they did not reflect the actual costs incurred in complying with the summons. The Clinic set out the following as a reasonable basis for calculating the costs it incurred complying with the summons –Administration fee $38 Photocopying fee $0.90 Delivery costs $17.65 GST 10% of total invoice Legal framework The issue is to be decided under applicable provisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 2015 (Regulations).

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

For the purposes of reg 13(6) and reg 13(7), the allowance that is payable in respect of reasonable expenses the Clinic incurred complying with the summons issued by the Tribunal on 16 September 2020 is an amount of $376.05 plus GST.Decision The allowance payable to the Queanbeyan GP Super Clinic under reg 13 (6) in respect of reasonable expenses incurred complying with the Tribunal summons issued on 16 September 2020 is an amount of $376.05 plus GST.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.