Victorian WorkCover Authority v Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for Archdiocese of Melbourne

The Victorian WorkCover Authority (the Authority) sought recovery of costs from the Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Archdiocese of Melbourne (the Church) after the Authority had previously paid compensation to an injured worker. The Authority had commenced a recovery action against the Church under section 138 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, following a failed worker’s action for damages. The Authority no longer argued that the Church was liable for the worker’s injury, but was instead seeking to recover costs incurred in the worker’s action. The worker appealed the jury verdict in the worker’s action, leading to the Church arguing that the Authority’s recovery action should be dismissed or adjourned. The Church also argued that, as the successful defendant in the worker’s action, it should be entitled to the costs of defending that action against the Authority, and that it should be entitled to an order for costs in the recovery action that included the common costs incurred in the worker’s proceeding.

The Court was required to determine whether the Authority’s recovery action should be adjourned or dismissed, and whether the Church was entitled to the costs of defending the worker’s action against the Authority and the costs of the common proceedings. The Court noted that the Authority had withdrawn its contention that the Church was liable for the worker’s injury, but was instead seeking to recover costs. The Court held that the worker’s appeal did not affect the Authority’s entitlement to recover costs, and that the recovery action should proceed. The Court also held that the Church was entitled to the costs of defending the worker’s action against the Authority, as a successful defendant in that action, and that it was entitled to an order for costs in the recovery action that included the common costs incurred in the worker’s proceeding.

The Court found that the Authority’s recovery action should proceed, and that the Church was entitled to the costs of defending the worker’s action against the Authority. The Court also found that the Church was entitled to an order for costs in the recovery action that included the common costs incurred in the worker’s proceeding. The Court noted that the costs orders were discretionary, and that the Church would be required to provide security for the costs of the Authority’s recovery action.

The Court ordered that the Authority’s recovery action should proceed, and that the Church was entitled to the costs of defending the worker’s action against the Authority, and the costs of the common proceedings. The Court also ordered that the Church provide security for the costs of the Authority’s recovery action.