Wicks v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2)

Case [2021] QIRC 112

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Wicks v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2021] QIRC 112

PARTIES:

Wicks, Helen
(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

CASE NO.:

 WC/2020/4

PROCEEDING:

 Application in existing proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

 1 April 2021

HEARING DATE: 

On the papers

MEMBER:

Merrell DP

DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Appellant's and Respondent's written submissions filed on 22 January 2021

ORDER:

The Respondent pays the Appellant's costs fixed in the sum of $248.70.
CATCHWORDS:

COSTS - application in existing proceedings by the Respondent to dismiss worker's appeal - Respondent's application in existing proceedings dismissed - decision about costs - whether the Commission has power, pursuant to s 536 or s 545 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, to award costs in relation to an application in existing proceedings in an appeal under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - whether Commission has power, pursuant to s 558(3) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 or s 132(1) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 , to award costs in relation to an application in existing proceedings in an appeal under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - order as to costs made
LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 36 and sch 1

Fair Work Act 2009, s 570

Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 326

Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 448, s 536, s 541, s 545, s 548, s 553, s 558 and sch 2

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 70 and r 226

Statutory Instruments Act 1992, s 4, s 14(1) and sch 1

Uniform Civil Procedure (Fees) Regulation 2019, sch 2, pt 2 and pt 3

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 693 and sch 2, pt 2, scale C

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, s 506

WorkCover Queensland Regulation 1997, s 75

Workers' Compensation Act 1990, s 98

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 131, s 548A, s 552, s 552A, s 554, s 555, s 556, s 557, s 558, s 560A, s 561 and s 563

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003, s 113

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014, s 132

Workers' Compensation Regulation 1992, s 31
CASES:

Brisbane City Council v Gillow & Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2016] ICQ 007; (2016) 255 IR 268

Canton v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 145

Certain Lloyd's Underwriters v Cross [2012] HCA 56; (2012) 248 CLR 378

Church v (Simon Blackwood) Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] ICQ 031; (2015) 252 IR 461

Commissioner of Police of New South Wales v Eaton [2013] HCA 2; (2013) 252 CLR 1

Ellis v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 201

Gambaro vWorkers' Compensation Regulator [2017] ICQ 005

Hooyer v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 163

Interchase Corporation Limited (in liq) v Grosvenor Hill (Queensland) Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2001] QCA 191; [2003] 1 Qd R 26

Kim v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 14

Kujawa v Workers' Compensation…

Continue reading Wicks v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wicks v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2021] QIRC 112
Case
[2021] QIRC 112
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wicks v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2), the court was tasked with determining the costs associated with an appeal lodged under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The Respondent, the Workers' Compensation Regulator, had applied to dismiss the worker's appeal and subsequently sought an order for costs in the existing proceedings. The case reached the Industrial Relations Commission of Queensland where the primary issue was whether the Commission had the statutory authority to award costs for an application in existing proceedings under the relevant acts and regulations.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting sections 536 and 545 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, as well as sections 558(3) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and 132(1) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014. The court needed to ascertain whether these provisions conferred the power to award costs for the Regulator's application in existing proceedings within an appeal context. The court also had to consider whether the matters raised by the Regulator warranted an exceptional award of costs beyond the standard scale, as potentially allowed under the regulation.

The court examined the nature of the matters raised by the Regulator and concluded that they did not meet the criteria for being deemed important, difficult, or complex as outlined in section 132(3) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation. The court noted that most of these matters had been addressed in a prior case, Church, albeit with different facts. Given that the Regulator's application did not involve significant work, the court decided against awarding costs exceeding the standard amount. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to order that the Respondent pay the Appellant's costs, fixed at $248.70, under the provisions of section 132(1) of the WC Regulation.

In summary, the court ruled that the Industrial Relations Commission had the power to make an order for costs in relation to the Regulator's application. It exercised this discretion in favor of the Appellant, Ms. Wicks, and ordered the Respondent to pay her costs, fixed in the sum of $248.70.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondent pays the Appellant's costs fixed in the sum of $248.70.

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

The matters raised by the Regulator did not give rise to important matters as described in s 132(3) of the WC Regulation. Most of the matters raised had been dealt with in Church,[44] although the facts in the present case were different. Similarly, the matters were not difficult or complex and the work involved was not significant. For these reasons, I am not persuaded that this is a case where I should allow costs of up to 1.5 times of the amount allowed under the relevant scale because that amount is inadequate.[44] Church (n 17).Conclusion For the reasons given above, s 132(1) of the WC Regulation confers power to make an order for costs in relation to the Regulator's application. I exercise that discretion in favour of Ms Wicks to the extent allowable under the WC Regulation. Order I make the following Order:The Respondent pays the Appellant's costs fixed in the sum of $248.70.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.