Stone v Belmore Bulk Materials Pty Ltd

Case [2024] ICQ 23

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Stone v Belmore Bulk Materials Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] ICQ 023

PARTIES:

STONE, MARK DOUGLAS
(Appellant)

V

BELMORE BULK MATERIAL PTY LTD
(First Respondent)

SEARLE, TIMOTHY FRANCIS
(Second Respondent)

CASE NO:

 C/2023/18

PROCEEDING:

 Appeal against decision of Industrial Magistrate

DELIVERED ON:

 20 December 2024
HEARING DATE 

25 August 2023

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Hartigan DP

Brisbane

ORDER:

1.       The Appeal is allowed.

2.       The orders as to costs made on 4 May 2023 is set aside.

3.       The question of costs is remitted to the Industrial Magistrates Court to be heard and determined according to law by an Industrial Magistrate other than Industrial Magistrate Kennedy.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATE AS TO COSTS – PARTICULARS – SUFFICIENCY OF REASONS –  where the appellant commenced proceedings seeking orders convicting the respondents of breaches of the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) – where the respondents were acquitted of all charges – where the Industrial Magistrate ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' costs – where costs were awarded under s 158A of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – where it was determined that the case was one of ‘special difficulty, complexity or importance’ and a higher amount of costs was ‘just and reasonable’ under s 158B of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – where these costs were set at $394,361.05 – where expert evidence was relied upon – where admissibility of evidence was objected to – whether costs were ‘just and reasonable’ – whether the Magistrate’s reasons fully disclose the basis for the calculation of quantum – whether the quantum of costs were properly calculated with regard had to the scale under the Justices Regulation2014 (Qld) sch 2 – whether adequate reasons given – where Industrial Magistrate found to not have provided sufficient reasons – where Industrial Magistrate found to not have properly dealt with objection to expert evidence – where reasons provided not indicative of matter being one of ‘special difficulty, complexity or importance’– where appeal is granted – matter remitted to the Industrial Magistrates Court.

LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 44

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 569


Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 158, 158A, 158B, 159

Justices Regulation 2014 (Qld), r 19, sch 2

Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld), ss 6, 243

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 702
CASES:

Cullinan v McMahon [2014] QDC 120

Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486
Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 66; [2009] 2 Qd R 219
Hickey v Crime and Misconduct Commission [2008] QDC 240

Interclean Industrial Services Ltd v Auckland Regional Council [2000] 3 NSWLR 489

Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705

R v Reed [2010] 1 CR App R 23

R v Ping [2006] 2 Qd R 69

R W Miller and Co Pty Ld v Krupp (Australia) Pty Ltd (1991) 34 NSWLR 129

Schloss v Bell;…

Continue reading Stone v Belmore Bulk Materials Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stone v Belmore Bulk Materials Pty Ltd [2024] ICQ 23
Case
[2024] ICQ 23
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stone v Belmore Bulk Materials Pty Ltd, the appellant, Stone, had initiated proceedings against the respondents, Belmore Bulk Materials Pty Ltd, seeking orders for breaches of the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld). The respondents were ultimately acquitted of all charges. Following the trial, the Industrial Magistrate ordered Stone to pay the respondents' costs, which were set at $394,361.05, under section 158A of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The Magistrate's decision was based on the case being one of 'special difficulty, complexity or importance' and that the awarded amount was 'just and reasonable' under section 158B of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). Stone appealed against the decision, challenging the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Magistrate, the proper consideration of objections to expert evidence, and the accuracy of the costs calculation.

The primary legal issues in this case revolved around the sufficiency of the reasons provided by the Industrial Magistrate for the calculation of costs, the proper assessment of whether the case warranted costs under section 158B of the Justices Act, and the appropriate application of the scale under the Justices Regulation 2014 (Qld) sch 2. Stone argued that the Magistrate had failed to provide adequate reasons for the quantum of costs and had not properly dealt with objections to the admissibility of expert evidence. Furthermore, Stone contended that the reasons provided did not justify the characterisation of the case as one of 'special difficulty, complexity or importance'.

The court found that the Industrial Magistrate had not provided sufficient reasons for the calculation of costs, particularly in relation to the characterisation of the case as one of 'special difficulty, complexity or importance'. Additionally, the Magistrate did not adequately address the objection to the admissibility of expert evidence. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the orders as to costs made on 4 May 2023 were set aside. The matter was remitted to the Industrial Magistrates Court to be heard and determined by an Industrial Magistrate other than Industrial Magistrate Kennedy.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appeal is allowed.

2. The orders as to costs made on 4 May 2023 is set aside.

3. The question of costs is remitted to the Industrial Magistrates Court to be heard and determined according to law by an Industrial Magistrate other than Industrial Magistrate Kennedy.

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

Full text does not contain this section.