The University of Queensland v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2)

The University of Queensland sought to appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, raising issues regarding the payment of costs and the ability to cancel appointments with psychiatrists through a costs application. The appeal centred on the determination of whether the application to proceed with the appeal was out of time and the appropriateness of paying the cancellation fee of psychiatrists through the costs application. The court had to decide whether it was just and reasonable to exercise its discretion to allow the matter to proceed and pay the cancellation fees.

The legal issues before the court included the timeliness of the application, the authority to pay the psychiatrists' cancellation fees, and the exercise of discretion in making an order for costs. The court considered the principles of procedural fairness and the need to ensure that the proceedings were not unduly delayed. It also examined the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the psychiatrists' appointments and whether it was reasonable to compensate them for their time.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the application was indeed out of time, but the parties had reached an agreement to proceed. The court acknowledged the importance of allowing the appeal to proceed to address the substantive issues, despite the procedural delay. Regarding the payment of the psychiatrists' cancellation fees, the court found that it was just and reasonable to compensate them, as the delay was not due to any fault of the psychiatrists, and the circumstances warranted such compensation. The court exercised its discretion under the relevant legislation to make the order for costs, including the payment of the cancellation fees.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the hearing in the sum of $3,721.85, which included the psychiatrists' cancellation fees. The court allowed the appeal to proceed, recognising the need to balance procedural fairness with the importance of resolving the substantive issues at hand.