Willis v SPL Group Ltd - [2007] NSWWCCPD 32

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE REGISTRAR IN RELATION TO COSTS

CITATION:Willis v SPL Group Ltd [2007] NSWWCCPD 32
APPELLANT:  Leonard Willis
RESPONDENT:  SPL Group Ld
INSURER:QBE Workers’ Compensation (NSW) Ltd
FILE NUMBER:  WCC16466-05
DATE OF REGISTRAR’S DECISION:             20 February 2006
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  2 February 2007
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Appeal against the Registrar’s decision in relation to costs: lack of procedural fairness; adequacy of reasons; professional costs - claims under Items 2.01, 2.06, 4.05, 4.08 and 4.09 of the Compensation Costs Table in Schedule 6 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003; whether maximum costs specified in the Table before 17 March 2006 are inclusive of GST.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:  Acting Deputy President Robin Handley
HEARING:On the papers
REPRESENTATION:  Appellant:      Maurice May Lawyers
Respondent:   In-House Legal Department, QBE Workers’ Compensation (NSW) Ltd

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: The Registrar’s determination of Mr Willis’ costs in this matter, dated 20 February 2006, is amended in accordance with these reasons.
The Respondent, SPL Group Ltd is to pay the Appellant, Mr Willis $275 inclusive of GST in respect of his costs in the appeal.

BACKGROUND

On 2 March 2006, Leonard Willis filed an appeal against the Registrar’s assessment of costs in proceedings determined by a Commission Arbitrator. The Respondent to the appeal is SPL Group Ltd (‘SPL’) and SPL’s workers compensation insurer is QBE Workers’ Compensation (NSW) Ltd (‘QBE’). No ‘Notice of Opposition to the Appeal’ has been filed by QBE.

Mr Willis was born on 1 September 1947 and is aged 59. He is employed as a packer/leading hand with SPL at Smithfield. On 15 August 2002, in the course of his employment, Mr Willis tripped over a metal pole injuring his left knee. He subsequently made a claim for workers compensation.

On 12 February 2004, the Commission registered Mr Willis’ ‘Application to Resolve a Dispute’ in respect of his claim for weekly benefits. QBE lodged a ‘Reply’ on 3 March 2004. On 20 April 2004, an Arbitrator conducted a teleconference with the parties in the course of which the parties came to an agreed resolution of the issues in dispute. On 21 April 2004, the Arbitrator issued a Certificate of Determination in the following terms:

“1. That the Respondent pay the Applicant weekly compensation at the rate of $183.85 from 9 January 2003 to 9 March 2003 and from 18 June 2003 to 30 July 2003 (not including 25 and 26 June 2003) under s 40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
2. That the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.”

On 21 October 2004, the Commission registered a section 66A Lump Sum Agreement pursuant to which SPL agreed to pay $1,250 to Mr Willis in respect of a 1% whole person impairment.

On 26 September 2005, the parties having failed to agree on the costs payable, Mr Willis’ solicitors lodged an ‘Application for Assessment of Costs’ with the Commission. The Registrar delegated the assessment of costs to an Arbitrator…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Willis v SPL Group Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] NSWWCCPD 32
Decision Date: 2 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leonard Willis filed an appeal against the Registrar's assessment of costs in workers compensation proceedings. The appeal was against the decision of SPL Group Ltd and QBE Workers’ Compensation (NSW) Ltd. The key issues were procedural fairness, adequacy of reasons, and specific professional costs under certain items of the Compensation Costs Table in the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003. The appeal also questioned whether the maximum costs specified in the Table before 17 March 2006 were inclusive of GST.

The Acting Deputy President, Robin Handley, assessed the appeal based on the papers submitted. The court noted that Mr Willis' solicitors had two opportunities to make submissions on the professional costs in dispute but did not beyond supplying copies of relevant correspondence. The court found that the Registrar did not deny procedural fairness as the solicitors had a chance to respond to the insurer's submissions. Regarding the adequacy of reasons, the court found the Registrar's reasons inadequate as they did not consider relevant evidence and failed to explain why the insurer's view was preferred. The court allowed additional amounts under certain items, but rejected the claim for GST as it was not allowed under the Regulation before the 17 March 2006 amendment.

The court concluded that Mr Willis' solicitors should be awarded an additional amount in respect of their professional costs under Items 2.01 and 2.06, totalling $500, and $125 (inclusive of GST) for their costs of the assessment, giving a total of $3,009.75. The court ordered that SPL Group Ltd should pay Mr Willis $275 (inclusive of GST) in respect of his costs in the appeal.

Orders