Vincent v Mayne Health (Mayne Group Limited) - [2007] NSWWCCPD 67

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE REGISTRAR IN
RELATION TO COSTS
CITATION:Vincent v Mayne Health (Mayne Group Limited) [2007] NSWWCCPD 67
APPELLANT:  Corinne Kelly Vincent
RESPONDENT:  Mayne Health (Mayne Group Limited)
INSURER:Mayne Group Limited
FILE NUMBER:  WCC20604-05
DATE OF REGISTRAR’S DECISION:             10 March 2006
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  28 February 2007
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Appeal against the Registrar’s decision in relation to costs: professional costs - claim under Item 4.03B and whether maximum costs specified in the Compensation Costs Table in Schedule 6 of the WorkersCompensation Regulation 2003 are inclusive of GST.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:  Acting Deputy President Julian Martin
HEARING:On the papers
REPRESENTATION:  Appellant:      Maurice May Lawyers
Respondent:   Leigh Virtue & Associates

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: 1. The decision of the Registrar dated 10 March 2006 is confirmed.

2. No order as to costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND

Substantive Proceedings

On 21 October 2004 Corinne Kelly Vincent (‘Ms Vincent’) commenced proceedings in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against Mayne Health (Mayne Group Limited) (‘Mayne Health’) claiming weekly benefits compensation and medical and related expenses.

A teleconference was held with the parties on 25 February 2005 and as the matter was unable to be resolved it was set down for arbitration hearing on 23 March 2005. As a result of this arbitration hearing a Certificate of Determination was issued on 31 March 2005, which included an order that Mayne Health pay Ms Vincent’s “costs as agreed or assessed”.

The parties did not agree on costs and Ms Vincent’s solicitor lodged an Application for Assessment of Costs on 5 December 2005.

The costs were determined by the Registrar’s delegate, a Commission Arbitrator (‘the Delegate’) on 10 March 2006. The decision is as follows:

“1.Pursuant to a Determination of 31 March 2005, the Respondent employer is liable to pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
2.The Applicant’s costs of the proceedings are assessed at $4,536.80.
3.The Applicant’s costs of the assessment are allowed in the sum of $250.00.
4.The Respondent is to pay the amount of $4,786.80 to the Applicant if those costs have not already been paid.”

On 20 March 2006 Ms Vincent lodged an appeal from the Delegate’s decision.

ON THE PAPERS

Section 354(6) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’) provides:
“(6)If the Commission is satisfied that sufficient information has been supplied to it in connection with proceedings, the Commission may exercise functions under this Act without holding any conference or formal hearing.”
Mayne Health submit that the matter is not able to be dealt with ‘on the papers’ whilst Ms Vincent is silent on this issue.

I have both the Commission file regarding the cost dispute and the appeal file. In addition I have the substantive file and am satisfied that I have sufficient information to proceed ‘on the papers’ without holding any conference or formal hearing and that this is the appropriate course in the circumstances.

ISSUES IN…

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 Vincent v Mayne Health (Mayne Group Limited)

Details

AGLC: Vincent v Mayne Health (Mayne Group Limited) [2007] NSWWCCPD 67
Case: [2007] NSWWCCPD 67
Decision Date: 28 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vincent v Mayne Health (Mayne Group Limited) involved an appeal by Corinne Kelly Vincent against the Registrar's decision in relation to costs. The central issue was whether the Delegate correctly assessed the professional costs under Item 4.03B of the Compensation Costs Table and whether the maximum costs specified in the Table are inclusive of GST. The appeal was heard by the Workers Compensation Commission, with Acting Deputy President Julian Martin presiding.

The legal issues focused on whether the Delegate correctly exercised their discretion in assessing the costs, particularly in relation to the amount allowed under Item 4.03B and the applicability of GST to the costs. Ms Vincent argued that the Delegate should not have reduced the amount awarded under Item 4.03B, asserting that the Delegate's role was merely to decide if the costs for issuing directions were recoverable. Additionally, she claimed that the Delegate should have allowed GST on the total claim for items in the Table.

The court examined the submissions and found that the Delegate appropriately assessed the costs based on the evidence presented. The Delegate's decision to allow $30 under Item 4.03B, based on the actual conduct money paid, was upheld as it aligned with the principle that the recoverable amount should not exceed the actual disbursement. The court also upheld the Delegate's decision to disallow the claim for GST, as the Regulations did not permit such an addition at the time of the assessment. Although the Regulations were subsequently amended to allow for GST, the change took effect after the Delegate's assessment.

The court confirmed the decision of the Registrar and made no order regarding the costs of the appeal. The reasoning emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of finality in litigation and the relevance of available evidence in determining costs.

Orders