Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. ICQ
  3. 2019
  4. Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No 2) - [2019] ICQ 22

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment
  • Appeal Determined - Special Leave Refused (HCA)

Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No 2)[2019] ICQ 22

Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No 2)[2019] ICQ 22

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No 2) [2019] ICQ 22

PARTIES:

STEPHEN ROYCE

(appellant)

v

STATE OF QUEENSLAND (DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL)

(respondent)

FILE NO:

C/2018/27

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

12 December 2019

HEARING DATE:

Written submissions received on 3 December 2019 and 4 December 2019

MEMBER:

Martin J, President

ORDERS:

  1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to appeal on the Supreme Court Scale.
  2. If the parties do not agree on the amount of the costs the subject of this order by 24 January 2020, then the costs are to be assessed within 14 days of 24 January 2020.
  3. Any costs agreed, or assessed, are to be paid within 30 days of agreement or assessment.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – COSTS – where the appellant’s application to appeal did not satisfy the requirements of an appeal and was one in which he sought to reargue matters which had been agitated in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission – where the respondent submits that the appellant filed the application to appeal vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or, alternatively, it would have been reasonably apparent that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success – whether the appellant ought to pay the costs incurred by the respondent

Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 545

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011

CASES:

Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) [2019] ICQ 19, related

APPEARANCES:

Appellant in person

M Spry instructed by G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the respondent

  1. [1]
    Judgment in this matter was given on 29 November 2019. The parties sought time to provide written submissions on the question of costs. The respondent seeks an order for costs.
  2. [2]
    The general rule in the Court is that a person bears his or her own costs in relation to a proceeding. But the Court may order a party to the proceeding to pay the costs incurred by another party if the Court is satisfied that the party made the application vexatiously or without reasonable cause or that it would have been reasonably apparent to the party that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.[1]
  3. [3]
    The respondent submits that the appellant filed the application to appeal vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or, alternatively, it would have been reasonably apparent that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
  4. [4]
    As I observed in the reasons I gave,[2] Mr Royce’s application to appeal did not comply with either the Industrial Relations Act 2016 or the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011. Leave was not sought to appeal on grounds other than error of law or excess, or want, of jurisdiction and Mr Royce’s argument consisted mostly of an attempt to revisit and reargue matters which had been agitated in the Commission. Mr Royce has taken the same approach in his submissions on costs. Rather than concentrate on the application to appeal and the issues which arise under s 545 of the Industrial Relations Act, he has returned to the allegations which he made during the hearing in the Commission.
  5. [5]
    This was a case which did not satisfy the basic requirements of an appeal and was one in which Mr Royce sought to reargue matters rather than attempt to identify errors. It was one in which it would have been reasonably apparent that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.
  6. [6]
    I order that Stephen Royce pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to appeal on the Supreme Court Scale. If the parties do not agree on the amount of the costs the subject of this order by 24 January 2020, then the costs are to be assessed within 14 days of 24 January 2020. Any costs agreed, or assessed, are to be paid within 30 days of agreement or assessment.

Footnotes

[1]Industrial Relations Act 2016 s 545.

[2][2019] ICQ 19.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No 2)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) (No 2)

  • MNC:

    [2019] ICQ 22

  • Court:

    ICQ

  • Judge(s):

    Martin J

  • Date:

    12 Dec 2019

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
Primary Judgment[2018] QIRC 14328 Nov 2018Application for reinstatement of employment as mediator, alleging unfair dismissal; application dismissed: Bloomfield DP.
Primary Judgment[2019] ICQ 1929 Nov 2019Application to appeal against [2018] QIRC 143 dismissed: Martin J.
Primary Judgment[2019] ICQ 2212 Dec 2019Costs order following [2019] ICQ 19: Martin J.
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2021] QCA 9005 May 2021Appeal from [2019] ICQ 19 dismissed: Sofronoff P, Mullins JA, Ryan J.
Special Leave Refused (HCA)[2021] HCASL 17709 Sep 2021Application for special leave to appeal against [2021] QCA 90 refused: Gageler and Gleeson JJ.

Appeal Status

Appeal Determined - Special Leave Refused (HCA)

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Royce v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) [2019] ICQ 19
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] ICQ 19
Cite 2 - [2019] ICQ 19

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Carr [2023] ICQ 11 citation
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.