Wilson v PJ & BM Kennedy
[2006] NSWWCCPD 345
•15 December 2006
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE REGISTRAR IN RELATION TO COSTS
CITATION:Wilson v Phillip J Kennedy & Bronwyn M Kennedy t/as PJ & BM Kennedy [2006] NSWWCCPD 345
APPELLANT: Peter George Wilson
RESPONDENT: Phillip J Kennedy & Bronwyn M Kennedy t/as PJ & BM Kennedy
INSURER:CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited
FILE NUMBER: WCC1179-06
DATE OF REGISTRAR’S DECISION: 29 May 2006
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 15 December 2006
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Appeal against the Registrar’s Assessment of Costs: Items 2.05, 2.06, 4.07, 4.08, 4.12 and 9.01 of Schedule 6 of the Workers Compensation Regulation (2003); disbursements – agency fees, fee for private investigator’s report, travel expenses.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Acting Deputy President Deborah Moore
HEARING:On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: McCabe Partners Lawyers
Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: 1. The Registrar’s determination of Mr
Wilson’s claim for costs in this matter, dated 29 May 2006 is amended in accordance with these reasons.
2. The Respondent, PJ & BM Kennedy is
to pay the Appellant, Mr Wilson, $275.00 inclusive of GST in respect of his costs in this appeal.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
On 23 June 2006 Peter George Wilson (‘Mr Wilson’) filed an ‘Appeal Against a Cost Determination’ made by the Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) on 29 May 2006. The Respondent to the appeal is Phillip J Kennedy and Bronwyn M Kennedy trading as P J & B M Kennedy (the “Kennedy’s). On 19 July 2006 the Kennedy’s solicitor filed a ‘Notice of Opposition’ to the appeal.
Mr Wilson commenced proceedings in the Commission on 22 June 2004 seeking weekly benefits compensation and related medical expenses as a consequence of a number of injuries he claimed he suffered in the course of his employment with the Kennedy’s.
The parties attended an arbitration hearing on 1 November 2004. On 22 November 2004 a ‘Certificate of Determination’ was issued which included an order that the Kennedy’s pay Mr Wilson’s costs “as agreed or assessed”.
Mr Wilson also claimed non-economic loss compensation. Following referral to three separate Approved Medical Specialists (‘AMS’) to assess the various claims, the parties attended a Teleconference before the same Arbitrator on 12 December 2005 where the parties, assisted by the Arbitrator, were able to reach an agreed resolution of the issues in dispute. On 16 December 2005 the Arbitrator issued a further ‘Certificate of Determination’ setting out the parties’ agreement and again included a clause requiring the Kennedy’s to pay Mr Wilson’s costs “as agreed or assessed”.
On 23 January 2006, the parties having failed to agree on the costs payable, Mr Wilson’s solicitors filed an ‘Application for Assessment of Costs’ with the Commission in respect of their Bill of Costs apparently dated either 2 or 5 December 2005. The Kennedy’s filed submissions on 21 February 2006 and Mr Wilson’s solicitors filed further submissions on 6 April 2006.
The Registrar delegated the assessment of costs to a Commission Arbitrator (‘the Delegate’) who made a determination dated 29 May 2006. The ‘Certificate of Determination’ stated as follows:
“1. Pursuant to an Agreement and Order dated 16 December 2005 the Respondent employer is liable to pay the Applicant’s costs of the Application as agreed or assessed.
2. The Applicant’s costs of the proceedings assessed in the sum of $13,933.81 (inclusive of GST) are determined as fair and reasonable.
3. The Applicant’s costs of the assessment (inclusive of GST) are allowed in an amount of $550.00.
4. The Respondent is to pay the amount of $14,483.81 to the Applicant if those costs have not already been paid.”
The relevant aspects of the Delegate’s ‘Statement of Reasons’ for his decision will be dealt with below.
ON THE PAPERS REVIEW
No submissions have been made by the Appellant on this issue. The Respondent submits that the matter is suitable for a determination ‘on the papers’.
I have before me the Commission files in both the substantive matter and the cost dispute together with the parties’ submissions on appeal.
Having carefully read this material, I am satisfied that I have sufficient information to proceed ‘on the papers’ in accordance with the provisions of section 354 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’) and Practice Direction No. 1, and that this is the appropriate course in the circumstances.
SUBMISSIONS, DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Mr Wilson’s solicitors submit that the Delegate made errors of law in his interpretation of clauses 82 and 84 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003 (‘the 2003 Regulation’), and in his assessment of costs by reference to the Compensation Costs Table (‘the Table’) set out in Schedule 6 of the 2003 Regulation.
The Kennedy’s solicitors also take issue with the Delegate’s assessment in respect of some Items in the Table.
Both parties dispute the Delegate’s mathematical calculations on some Items, in particular his calculation of GST. I note the Delegate reached a total figure of $13,933.81. The Kennedy’s calculate the total should be $13,019.62 in accordance with their letter to the Commission dated 26 June 2006 wherein they requested an amended ‘Certificate of Determination’ of costs. By my calculation, the figure should read $13,021.56.
Mr Wilson’s solicitor purportedly set out a list of Items agreed between the parties in his appeal application. That document is inconsistent with the Kennedy’s schedule of ‘agreed amounts’. There is a difference of opinion as to “disputed Items” and “allowed Items”.
In the circumstances, the appropriate course is to deal with the Items listed in Mr Wilson’s appeal and in the Kennedy’s ‘Notice of Opposition’.
The following Items have been identified as being in dispute, each of which I will deal with in turn:
Professional Costs
Item 2.05 - $100.00
Item 2.06 - $500.00
Item 4.07 - $300.00
Item 4.08 - $2750.00
Item 4.09 - $1000.00
Item 4.11 - $250.00
Item 4.12 - $760.00
Item 9.01 - $625.00
Item 10.01 - $187.50
Disbursements
Agency Fees $330.00
Private Investigator’s report $2631.26Professional Costs
Item 2.05
This is described in column 2 of the Table as “briefing a factual investigator or other investigator to obtain evidence other than witness statements (not including the investigator’s fee).”
The Kennedy’s submit that Mr Wilson is not entitled to recover costs under this Item since “… no actual factual investigations were undertaken, and no factual report was submitted in the proceedings”. The Kennedy’s maintain that the only purpose of the investigation was to obtain a statement from Mr Wilson, which activity is covered by “obtaining instructions” in Item 2.01.
The Delegate disallowed the claim and instead made an allowance of $165.00 (inclusive of GST) pursuant to Item 2.04A “… for the agent obtaining the statement of the worker that is attached to the report of 23 September 2003”).
The Delegate stated “I do not allow the cost of instructing the investigator for this purpose as Item 2.05 clearly excludes the cost of briefing an investigator to obtain statements.”
This issue was recently dealt with by ADP Handley in Harvey v JJC Group Pty Limited [2006] NSWWCCPD 329 (‘Harvey’) where he stated at paragraph 16 as follows:
“I note that in McManus v Gosford City Council [2004] NSWWCCPD 61 (‘McManus’), at paragraph 21, Deputy President Fleming said:
“Item 2.05 does not encompass briefing a factual investigator to take a statement from a worker/applicant. The costs involved in obtaining a worker’s statement are encapsulated and absorbed by Item 2.01, “Obtaining instructions from client ...”
She confirmed this in Berger v Moree Plains Shire Council [2005] NSWWCCPD 152 (‘Berger’) at paragraph 141:
“Item 2.05 does not permit a claim for briefing a factual investigator to obtain witness statements, which includes a statement from the worker.”
In Moore v PM & JH Turner [2006] NSWWCCPD 110, I disallowed the claim for this Item on the basis that the investigator’s report “… is no more than a ‘statement from the worker’”
In the present case, the investigator’s report also included a business name search and a schedule of earnings including copies of tax returns, so it is not strictly true to say, as the Kennedy’s submit, that, the “only purpose” of the investigator was to obtain a statement from the worker.
In the particular circumstances of this case, I would allow the costs claimed in Item 2.05 and as a consequence, disallow Item 2.04A as effectively ‘substituted’ by the Delegate.
I note in Mr Wilson’s submissions on appeal, that it is stated: “The Applicant’s solicitor does not request payment under Item 2.04A, because they briefed a private investigator.”
Item 2.06
This is described in the Table as “requesting a review of the claim from the insurer, prior to referral of the matter to the Commission”.
Mr Wilson’s solicitors claim $500.00 for requesting such a review.
The Delegate allowed this Item stating that:
“The letter of 3 May [2004] and any subsequent work in relation to the Respondent’s consideration of the claim amounts to the request for a review and the work necessary for that process. I think that an allowance of two hours ($500.00) is fair and reasonable.”
This was disputed by the Kennedy’s in their submissions of 17 February 2006 on the grounds that “… the only request for a review was made by way of a letter dated 3 May 2004, which is the same letter duly making the Applicant’s claim.” The Kennedy’s maintained that these costs had been claimed and allowed under Item 1.02.
The letter in question was not included in Mr Wilson’s Bill of Costs, but was included with the Kennedy’s submissions. It is addressed to the Kennedy’s and includes copies of medical reports, a schedule of Mr Wilson’s claim and a request for a number of particulars, including “the name of your workers compensation insurer at the time of injury”. The letter goes on to advise the Kennedy’s of their obligation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’) to provide that information within 21 days, and requests that “… your workers compensation insurer review their decision to deny liability with regards to the Applicant’s claims as stated in the Application to Resolve a Dispute.” A “draft Application to Resolve a Dispute dated 3 May 2005” was annexed to the letter.
Perusal of the substantive file discloses a copy of a letter from CGU to Mr Wilson’s solicitors dated 7 May 2004 in the following terms:
“We refer to your letter dated 3 May 2004 and advise the claim for section 66 and 67 has been denied. The claim for weekly compensation and medical expenses is denied as well.
Enclosed is a copy of the claim form and reports as requested. No payments have been made and we are unable to advise of any further details.”
Thus the insurer’s purported denial of liability was dated 7 May 2004, after Mr Wilson’s letter to Mr Wilson’s solicitor’s letter to the Kennedy’s of 3 May 2004.
In my view, the letter could not be regarded as a request for “review” by the insurer. At the time of the letter, the insurer was not even identified.
Mr Wilson’s solicitors made reference in their Bill of Costs to a decision of the Commission of Bell v Davcap Pty Limited (2003) NSWWCC C5, quoting this passage:
“Schedule 6 of the Regulation does not prescribe, or seek to prescribe, a definitive format, or formality, for a ‘Request to Review’ for the purposes of Item 2.06 in part 2A. From time to time, within communications between worker and insurer and their representatives, these words will occasionally actually appear (if that is what is meant to be some ‘formal’ representation of it). At other times, indeed equally frequently, those specific words do not appear. The utility, or absence, of those words does not, in my view or determination, negate the reality that a claim review is, or has been, effectively requested.”
Whilst I agree in principle with those comments, it must be remembered that Item 2.06 refers to a review “… prior to referral of the matter to the Commission”. In the present case, there is no evidence of any “communications” as referred to in Bell, [supra] between Mr Wilson and CGU and their representatives, such that there was nothing for the insurer to “review” prior to receipt of the letter from Mr Wilson’s solicitors to the Kennedy’s dated 3 May 2004.
In these circumstances, I would disallow the claim.
Item 4.07
This is described in the Table as “applying to refer a matter to an approved medical specialist including costs associated with agreeing on the approved medical specialist and review of the report by the approved medical specialist.”
Mr Wilson claims $300.00 on the basis that he was referred to three separate AMS’s, an orthopaedic specialist, a urologist, and a cardiovascular surgeon.
The Delegate allowed $100.00 on the basis that the amount was “the maximum amount under this Item”.
I disagree. It is noted that the Item encompasses the review of the report of the AMS. In addition, the Item refers to referral to ‘an’ AMS, in the singular, such that where various specialists are required for the purpose of assessment, it is appropriate to allow the Item in respect of each specialist.
I am satisfied that the claim under this Item should be allowed.
Item 4.08
Item 4.08 is described in the Table as: “Preparing for a conference (including providing advice to client)”. At the relevant time, the maximum total for that activity or event was $500.00. Mr Wilson’s solicitors claim an additional $2250.00, the Delegate having allowed $500.00 under this Item on the basis that: “The Applicant is only entitled to the maximum of this Item … no matter how many conferences are prepared for.”
This Item was also considered in some detail by ADP Handley in Harvey [supra] where he said:
“In Orr v Direct Couriers (Australia) Pty Ltd [2004] NSWWCCPD 28 (‘Orr’), Deputy President Fleming discussed the application of column 4 of the Table in Schedule 6. Column 4 bears the heading “Maximum total for type of activity/event”. With reference to clause 1(2) of Schedule 6, the heading for column 4, and the NSW Court of Appeal decision in Orellana-Fuentes v Standard Knitting Mill Pty Ltd (2003) 57 NSWLR 282 (‘Fuentes’), the Deputy President said, at paragraph 38:
“The monetary values set out in Column 4 of the Table, are the maximum total for an event type in any particular claim, regardless of the number of individual activities that may take place under the event heading.”
Thus, in respect of Items 4.08, the legal practitioner may not be allowed more than the column 4 maximum regardless of the number activities/events of that type. (However, as Deputy President Fleming recognised in McManus, there is an exception in respect of Item 4.12 where, following Fuentes, the column 4 maximum of $190 may be allowed in respect of each conference or conciliation/arbitration.)”
In these circumstances, Mr Wilson’s claim for $2750.00 is disallowed, and the Delegate’s decision confirmed.
Item 4.09/4.10/4.11
Although raised in submissions on appeal, it appears that these Items are not in fact the subject of appeal. In his initial Bill of Costs, Mr Wilson’s solicitor claimed an amount of $2,375.00 for attending/participating in a conference/arbitration. This was rejected by the Arbitrator who allowed a total of $1250.00 for Items 4.09 and 4.11, noting that 4.10 did not apply since the matter was not certified as complex. This appears to be in accordance with Mr Wilson’s solicitor’s own submission at page 33 of his Bill of Costs.
Item 4.12
This Item is described in the Table as: “Reporting to the client on the outcome of a conference or arbitration …” The maximum total at the relevant time for this activity was $190.00. As ADP Handley noted in Harvey [supra]
“… There is an exception to the general principle in relation to the column 4 maximum total in respect of Item 4.12, following Fuentes (Orellana Fuentes v Standard Knitting Mills Pty Limited & Anor [2003] NSWC 16) so that the maximum of $190.00 may be allowed in respect of each conference or conciliation/arbitration.”
Mr Wilson’s solicitors claimed $190.00 for reporting to the client following conferences on 20 September 2004, 12 October 2004, 30 November 2005 and 12 December 2005. A separate claim was made for reporting following the arbitration hearing on 1 November 2004. The Delegate allowed for ‘two reports’, stating:
“… Once for the outcome of the telephone conferences and once for the conciliation/arbitration. Any more is not fair and reasonable, nor in accordance with the schedule or the decision in Fuentes referred to above.”
The files disclosed that the parties attended a Teleconference on 13 October 2004 and an arbitration on 1 November 2004 and a further Teleconference on 12 December 2005. In these circumstances, I consider it reasonable to allow for three ‘reports’ given that they were effectively two separate proceedings, one for weekly payments and the other for non-economic loss compensation, although the latter resolved at the Teleconference on 12 December 2005.
Item 9.01
This Item is described in the Table as: “Conduct of any other proceedings before the Commission involving the determination of substantive legal issues, including preparatory work.”
Mr Wilson’s solicitors claimed the maximum amount of $625.00 plus GST under this Item. The Delegate allowed $550.00 inclusive of GST noting that:
“I accept that the Applicant has spent much more time than this amount on the assessment, however many of the claims are not made in accordance with the decision in Berger [Berger v Moree Plains Shire Council [2005] NSWWCCPD 152] and I reduce the amount allowed to take this into account.”
I can see no error in the Delegate’s determination in this regard. The Bill of Costs claimed many Items not relevant to the claim. For example, Item 7.01 with respect to registering an Agreement pursuant to section 66A of the 1987 Act. Mr Wilson’s solicitor’s made detailed submissions with reference to a number of decisions in support of his claim under this Item. No such activity was required, the Arbitrator having entered the relevant award in his determination of 12 December 2005. Mr Wilson’s solicitors did not press this claim on appeal, but it is a relevant example of the matters taken into consideration by the Delegate.
Disbursements
Agency Fees
Mr Wilson’s solicitors claimed a total of $330.00 inclusive of GST for work performed by St George Registration and Investigation Services Pty Limited (‘St George’). This included $66.00 for ‘filing’ and $264.00 for ‘inspection and photocopying’.
Item 4.05 of the Table provides for reviewing documentation produced under direction. Mr Wilson’s solicitors claimed the maximum amount under this Item which was allowed.
The Delegate also allowed a claim under Item 10.01 in the sum of $187.50 stating:
“It was reasonable and fair for the agent to be instructed to inspect the documents”.
The Kennedy’s submit that this should be disallowed since “such costs are encapsulated by Item 4.05”.
In Dunn v Port Macquarie RSL Club Limited [2004] NSWWCCPD 33 Deputy President Fleming stated (paragraph 41):
“To allow the Appellant in this matter to claim Item 4.05 twice, in relation to the work of a legal representative and of an agent, would amount to exceeding the maximum allowable, and the Items allowable, under the Regulation. This would be an error.”
This was confirmed by Deputy President Fleming in McManus v Gosford City Council [2004] NSWWCCPD 61 where she again disallowed a claim for instructing an agent under Item 10.01.
In the present case, in line with the decisions to which I have referred, I consider the Delegate’s decision is correct. Mr Wilson’s solicitors claim the maximum of $500.00 under Item 4.05 such that recovery of the agency fees of $330.00 is not permitted.
However, I accept Mr Wilson’s solicitor’s submission that, since instructions and “legal services” were provided in Young, and the documents produced to the Commission in Sydney, the Delegate’s allowance under Item 10.01 is appropriate. Whilst it can certainly be argued that this activity is “encapsulated” in Item 4.05, the “review” of documentation referred to in that Item, and indeed the exchange of information and obtaining further instructions also referred to in that Item, is the ultimate responsibility of a solicitor with conduct of the matter.
In my view, the purpose of Item 10.01 is to provide assistance to litigants and their legal representatives who are located outside of the Sydney area.
The Private Investigator’s Report
Mr Wilson’s solicitors claimed $2631.26 in respect of St George’s fees for preparing a “factual and liability summary report”. Those costs were Itemised as follows:
Factual and Liability Summary Report ($1,740.74) (incl GST)
Disbursements - $126.94
Wage Loss Report - $736.17 (incl GST)
The Delegate allowed $11.44 for a ‘Lawpoint’ search and $5.50 for ‘coloured photographs’, a total of $16.94. As to the remainder, the Delegate stated:
“Nothing else was done by the investigator (that is allowable under Schedule 6) that has not already been allowed for in the professional costs of obtaining instructions or inspecting documents. The cost of the investigator providing a report on wage loss is not allowable nor is this reasonable or necessary; it is part of the professional costs allowed under the Table and the maximums have already been allowed.”
This issue was considered by Deputy President Fleming in Berger, [supra] where she stated at paragraph 142:
“The fee for an investigator’s report, whether to obtain witness statements or other factual investigations (including a statement from the worker), may be claimed pursuant to clause 82(b) of the WC Regulation. The test of whether such a report is claimable will, as discussed above, essentially be one of ‘reasonableness’. In most cases, it will not be reasonable to obtain witness statements by way of an investigator’s report, where the legal practitioner or agent has already obtained those statements, either at the time of taking instructions or at a later time, being before an Application to the Commission is filed.”
In the present case, I am of the view that some activities contained in the St George Investigation Report were reasonable. The Arbitrator in his determination dated 22 November 2004 based his decision with respect to the claim for weekly payments on the Wage Schedule filed by Mr Wilson, no information apparently being provided by the Kennedy’s on this issue. However, I do not consider that the amount claimed for this Item is reasonable within the context of the decision in Berger.
A similar situation occurred in Beggs v W & D Stuart [2006] NSWWCCPD 308 where ADP Tydd considered a schedule of earnings contained in a St George report. ADP Tydd noted that the claim was for weekly benefits compensation necessitated consideration of section 40 of the 1987 Act for a period dating back to 1994. The schedule however extended from 1990 to 2004. ADP Tydd noted that:
“As the claim was for a period commencing 1994 and on Mr Beggs’ own account he had previously received, and at the date of his statement, was continuing to receive workers compensation payments from the insurer I do not view the costs of requiring all of the information daring [sic] back to 1990 as necessary to the claim.”
ADP Tydd reduced the amount claimed.
In the present case, I do not consider it was either fair or reasonable for St George to assess tax returns dating back to 1995, when the claim was for weekly benefits commenced in 2003.
In all the circumstances, I consider an amount of $250.00 (plus GST) to be reasonable and appropriate, in addition to the Delegate’s allowance.
As to the other disbursements, I am not persuaded, in line with the decisions to which I have referred, that they were either reasonable or necessary such that I do not consider that the Delegate made any error in disallowing the balance of the claim.
Travel Expenses
The Kennedy’s in their ‘Notice of Opposition’ dispute certain travel claims by both Mr Wilson and his solicitor. Consistent with the decision of ADP Handley in Harvey, in my view it is fair and reasonable where Mr Wilson is resident in Warren and his solicitor in Young for the solicitor to attend the conciliation/arbitration hearing and to claim expenses in accordance with the Table. Accordingly, the Delegate’s assessment that travel costs were “fair and reasonable” in the circumstances of this case was appropriate.
Reasons
In his supplementary submissions dated 9 August 2006, Mr Wilson submits that the Delegate’s reasons in many respects are inadequate. Whilst I do accept the submission that the determination was not “… easily understandable by both the Applicant’s and Respondent’s solicitors”, it was capable of correction on appeal. Whilst the failure to provide adequate reasons constitutes an error of law and may be a ground to set aside a Delegate’s decision, as Deputy President Fleming said in McManus [supra] at paragraph 32:
“… To succeed on the ground of ‘inadequate reasons’ it will be necessary for the Appellant to demonstrate not only that the reasons are inadequate but that the inadequacy sufficiently demonstrates that the Delegate has failed to exercise his or statutory duty to fairly and lawfully determine the application…”
Deputy President Fleming went on in the following terms at paragraph 33:
“It is not necessary for the Registrar, or her Delegate, to set out lengthy written reasons for a decision in order to comply with the Act and the Rules. To do so would be unreasonable and inconsistent with the objectives of the Commission …”
Whilst the Delegate’s reasons in this matter are often brief, in my view they meet the requirements of Regulation 115. The disputed Items are identified and brief reasons given as to whether or not they would be allowed.
SUMMARY
The Delegate’s determination is amended in accordance with my reasons stated above. Given that I have identified errors in the Delegate’s calculations and that the parties disagree on certain ‘agreed amounts’, it is appropriate that I set out below the totality of the costs allowed.
| ITEM | AMOUNT | GST | TOTAL |
| 1.01 1.02 2.01 2.02 2.04 2.04A (Disallowed) 2.05 2.06 (Disallowed) 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.03A 4.03B 5.05 4.07 (Allowed) 4.08 (As amended) 4.09 (As amended) 4.11 (As amended) 4.12 (As amended) 9.01 (As amended) 10.01 (Allowed) SUB-TOTAL: $6,911.85 Medical reports Agency fees (disallowed) St George (As amended) Applicant’s travel Solicitor’s travel TOTAL: $12,901.20 | $600.00 $100.00 $500.00 $20.00 $600.00 $100.00 $300.00 $40.00 $80.00 $80.00 $56.00 $500.00 $300.00 $500.00 $1000.00 $250.00 $570.00 $500.00 $187.50 $2590.00 $266.94 $2195.52 $592.00 | $60.00 $10.00 $50.00 $2.00 $60.00 $10.00 $30.00 $4.00 $8.00 $8.00 $5.60 $50.00 $30.00 $50.00 $100.00 $25.00 $57.00 $50.00 $18.75 $259.00 $26.69 Nil $59.20 | $660.00 $110.00 $550.00 $22.00 $660.00 $110.00 $330.00 $44.00 $88.00 $88.00 $61.60 $550.00 $330.00 $550.00 $1100.00 $275.00 $627.00 $550.00 $206.25 $2849.00 $293.63 $2195.52 $651.20 |
DECISION
The Delegate’s determination of $14,483.81 is set aside and the sum of $12,901.20 substituted in lieu thereof.
COSTS
Mr Wilson’s solicitors have been partly successful in this appeal, despite some Items being disallowed, and I am of the view it is reasonable to order that the Kennedy’s pay Mr Wilson’s costs of the appeal in the sum of $275.00 inclusive of GST.
I therefore order that: “The Respondent PJ & BM Kennedy is to pay to the Appellant, Mr Wilson, $275.00 inclusive of GST in respect of his costs of this appeal.”
Deborah Moore
Acting Deputy President
15 December 2006
I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF DEBORAH MOORE, ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
ASSOCIATE
3
5
0