Stevan Mlinar v Goninan & Co Limited t/as Maintrain

In the matter of Stevan Mlinar v Goninan & Co Limited t/as Maintrain, the appellant, an insurance company, sought leave to appeal against a decision of an arbitrator that pertained exclusively to an award of costs. The dispute arose from a claim for workers' compensation, where the appellant, acting as the insurer, was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent, a worker, following a claim that was ultimately unsuccessful. The appellant argued that the arbitrator had erred in her exercise of discretion under section 341 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 and had misdirected herself in her understanding of the legal principle that 'costs follow the event'. The respondent contended that the appeal should be dismissed as the amount in question did not meet the statutory threshold of at least $5,000 or 20% of the award, as required by section 352(2) of the 1998 Act.

The court had to determine whether the appeal met the statutory criteria for leave to appeal as set forth in section 352 of the 1998 Act. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the amount at issue in the appeal met the monetary thresholds and whether the appeal was brought within the requisite time frame. The court also had to examine the arguments presented by both parties regarding the merits of the appeal and whether the appellant could demonstrate that the arbitrator had indeed erred in law. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the principles of other jurisdictions regarding the allocation of costs were applicable and if the worker's actions in testing his claim were reasonable under the circumstances.

Upon reviewing the submissions and the relevant statutory provisions, the court found that the appeal did not satisfy the threshold requirements of section 352(2) of the 1998 Act as the amount of compensation at issue was less than $5,000 and did not constitute at least 20% of the award made. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the arbitrator had exercised her discretion erroneously or misdirected herself in law. Furthermore, the court found that there was no basis to conclude that the original application was unreasonably brought. Consequently, the court refused the appellant leave to appeal against the arbitrator's decision.

LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATOR IS REFUSED.