Woolworths Limited v Rodionov - [2011] QDC 169

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Woolworths Limited v Rodionov [2011] QDC 169

PARTIES:

WOOLWORTHS LIMITED
(Applicant)

AND

ADAM BORIS RODIONOV
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

OA4058/10

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 July 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Submissions in writing after 24 January 2011.

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – Power to Award – claim for damages for industrial accident – pre-litigation procedure – application to enforce obligations – whether restriction on costs applicable

EMPLOYMENT LAW – Injury of Employee – claim for damages – application during pre-litigation process – whether restriction on costs

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ss 318A, 318C.

ex parte Britt [1987] 1 Qd R 221 – cited.
Clarkson v. Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] 2 Qd R 122 – cited.
Edmunds v D Dunn Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] 2 Qd R 128 – cited.
Karaka v. Woolworths Limited, Supreme Court, Daubney J, 15 June 2009, unreported, – cited.

COUNSEL:

R C Morton for the applicant.

C Harding for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

This was an application to fix a date for a compulsory conference in a matter proceeding under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (“the Act”). The application came on before me on 24 January 2011 and I ordered that the compulsory conference be held within a certain period of time after a report from a Dr Campbell, which had been arranged by the respondent claimant's solicitors, had been obtained and was made available to the solicitors for both parties.

The question of costs was adjourned to a date to be fixed to enable the parties to address the effect on that issue of the relevant provisions of the Act, since neither side was in a position to address that issue at the time.

I subsequently received written submissions in relation to this matter from each of the parties; indeed I should say that those submissions were received quite promptly and it has been unfortunate that the matter has been overlooked by me until now. Both parties agree, and I accept, that the approach that I should adopt involves applying the Act with the benefit of the amendments made by the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010. The effect of that legislation was to repeal what had been section 316(4) of the Act and to insert relevantly sections 318A and 318C.

Section 318A provides "(1) A Court may make no order about costs to which division 1, 2 or 2A applies except the orders for costs provided for in the division. (2) Subsection 1 applies subject to this division.” Section 318C provides: “An order about costs for an interlocutory application may be made under division 2 only if the Court is satisfied that the application has been brought because of unreasonable delay by one of the parties."

It was noted in the submissions…

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 Woolworths Limited v Rodionov 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: [2011] QDC 169
Decision Date: 20 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolworths Limited brought an application in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia against Rodionov. The applicant sought to enforce certain obligations under a pre-litigation procedure. The dispute arose from an industrial accident where the respondent claimed damages. The central issue before the court was whether a restriction on costs applicable to the pre-litigation procedure also applied to the enforcement of obligations during that phase.

The court needed to determine if the restriction on costs in the pre-litigation process was applicable to the enforcement of obligations. The respondent argued that the costs incurred in enforcing obligations were not subject to the same restrictions as those incurred during the pre-litigation negotiations. The applicant contended that the costs incurred in enforcing obligations should be treated as part of the pre-litigation process and thus subject to the same restrictions.

In its decision, the court found that the restriction on costs applicable to the pre-litigation process did not extend to the enforcement of obligations. The court reasoned that the nature of the enforcement application was distinct from the pre-litigation negotiations and was thus not subject to the same cost restrictions. The court held that the enforcement of obligations was a separate procedural step, which should be considered independently from the pre-litigation phase. Consequently, the restriction on costs did not apply, and the court awarded the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed.

The court ordered that Woolworths Limited pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Woolworths Limited v Rodionov [2011] QDC 169
PARTIES:	WOOLWORTHS LIMITED (Applicant) AND ADAM BORIS RODIONOV (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	OA4058/10
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Originating application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 July 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Submissions in writing after 24 January 2011.
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:	COSTS – Power to Award – claim for damages for industrial accident – pre-litigation procedure – application to enforce obligations – whether restriction on costs applicable EMPLOYMENT LAW – Injury of Employee – claim for damages – application during pre-litigation process – whether restriction on costs Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ss 318A, 318C. ex parte Britt [1987] 1 Qd R 221 – cited. Clarkson v. Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] 2 Qd R 122 – cited. Edmunds v D Dunn Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] 2 Qd R 128 – cited. Karaka v. Woolworths Limited, Supreme Court, Daubney J, 15 June 2009, unreported, – cited.
COUNSEL:	R C Morton for the applicant. C Harding for the respondent.
SOLICITORS: