The University of Queensland v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2)
[2022] ICQ 27
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- The University of Queensland v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2)[2022] ICQ 27
- Add to List
The University of Queensland v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2)[2022] ICQ 27
The University of Queensland v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2)[2022] ICQ 27
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | The University of Queensland v Workers’ Compensation Regulator (No 2) [2022] ICQ 027 |
PARTIES: | THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND (appellant) v WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | C/2022/9 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal |
DELIVERED ON: | 2 September 2022 |
HEARING DATE: | Decision made on written submissions without oral hearing |
MEMBER: | Davis J, President |
ORDER/S: | That there be no order as to costs of the appeal to the Industrial Court of Queensland |
CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – where the appellant appealed the decision of the Regulator to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) – where that appeal was unsuccessful – where the appellant appealed against the QIRC decision to the Industrial Court – where that appeal was unsuccessful – where it was conceded by the Regulator that the appeal to the Industrial Court was not made “vexatiously or without reasonable cause” – where the Regulator does not seek the costs of the appeal to the Industrial Court – where the QIRC ordered the appellant to pay the Regulator’s costs of the appeal to it – where that order was not subject to appeal – whether any necessity to make further orders as to the costs of the appeal to the QIRC Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 563, s 558 |
CASES: | The University of Queensland v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2022] ICQ 018, related The University of Queensland v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 131, related The University of Queensland v Workers’ Compensation Regulator (No 2) [2022] QIRC 245, related Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives’ Union of Employees (No 2) [2021] ICQ 13, cited |
APPEARANCES: | Written submissions by HWL Ebsworth Lawyers for the appellant Written submissions by S P Sapsford for the respondent instructed directly by the Regulator |
- [1]
- [2]The Vice President’s decision dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Regulator who allowed the claim for workers’ compensation[3] of one of the appellant’s employees, a Ms Nicholson.
- [3]Section 563 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Workers’ Compensation Act) limits the jurisdiction of this Court to order costs against an unsuccessful party in an appeal to this Court. The Court may only award costs where the appeal has been made “vexatiously or without reasonable cause”.
- [4]As the primary judgment[4] shows, various arguments were raised on appeal as to the proper construction and application of various provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Mr Sapsford for the Regulator sensibly accepts that there should be no costs order in relation to the appeal to this Court.
- [5]As already observed, the appellant was unsuccessful in its appeal to the QIRC.[5]
- [6]Section 558(3) of the Workers’ Compensation Act empowered the QIRC to award the respondent its costs of the unsuccessful appeal. Those costs would normally follow the event of the appeal.[6] Vice President O'Connor ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $3,721.85 calculated as follows:
“(a) Item 8(f) Counsel’s fees of first day of hearing - $1,545.00
- (b)Item 10(b) Clerk attendance with Counsel – 1 day $281.80
- (c)Lay witness fee – Chantel Nicholson $84.45
- (d)Cancellation fee – expert witness Dr J Valappil $1,810.60
TOTAL $3,721.85”[7]
- [7]The respondent seeks from this Court an order that the appellant pay its costs in the sum of $3,721.15. The individual items claimed are identical to those allowed by O'Connor VP. The only reason the amount of costs claimed now differs by $0.70 from the amount ordered by O'Connor VP is that there is a mathematical error in the addition of those figures in the respondent’s present written submissions.
- [8]Had the appellant been successful on the appeal to this Court then this Court may have set aside the costs order made by the Vice President. However, the appellant was unsuccessful in its appeal. There is no separate appeal against the costs order made by O'Connor VP. It follows that the costs order stands, and this Court need not make any order as to costs of the appeal to the QIRC.
- [9]As already observed, no costs of the appeal from the QIRC to this Court are sought. The appropriate order then is to make no order as to costs.
Footnotes
[1] The University of Queensland v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2022] ICQ 018.
[2] The University of Queensland v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 131.
[3] Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.
[4] The University of Queensland v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2022] ICQ 018.
[5] The University of Queensland v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 131.
[6] Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives’ Union of Employees (No 2) [2021] ICQ 13 at [16].
[7] The University of Queensland v Workers’ Compensation Regulator (No 2) [2022] QIRC 245 at [3].