Torres Strait Island Regional Council v McIlroy-Ranga (No 2)
[2023] ICQ 29
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
- Torres Strait Island Regional Council v McIlroy-Ranga (No 2)[2023] ICQ 29
- Add to List
Torres Strait Island Regional Council v McIlroy-Ranga (No 2)[2023] ICQ 29
Torres Strait Island Regional Council v McIlroy-Ranga (No 2)[2023] ICQ 29
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Torres Strait Island Regional Council v McIlroy-Ranga (No 2) [2023] ICQ 029 |
PARTIES: | TORRES STRAIT ISLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL (appellant) v LUKE ASHLEY McILROY-RANGA (respondent) |
FILE NO: | C/2023/8 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal |
DELIVERED ON: | 28 November 2023 |
HEARING DATE: | Decision made on the papers without oral hearing |
MEMBER: | Davis J, President |
ORDER: | There be no order as to costs of the appeal |
CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – COSTS – where the appellant is a local authority – where the appellant employed the respondent – where the respondent made a claim for proportionate annual leave upon termination of employment – where the appellant denied the claim – where the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission held that an amount for proportionate annual leave was payable – where the appellant appealed to the Industrial Court of Queensland – where the appeal was unsuccessful – whether costs ought to be ordered against the appellant Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 545 |
CASES: | McIlroy-Ranga v Torres Strait Island Regional Council (No 2) [2023] QIRC 033, related |
COUNSEL: | C Mossman (Solicitor) for the appellant No submissions received for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Wotton + Kearney Lawyers for the appellant Queensland Services, Industrial Union of Employees for the respondent |
- [1]The appellant, the Torres Strait Island Regional Council (‘the Council’), is a local authority which employed the respondent, Luke Ashley McIlroy-Ranga.
- [2]Upon termination of his employment with the Council, Mr McIlroy-Ranga asserted a right to a proportion of his annual leave. The Council disputed that claim.
- [3]The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) found that proportionate annual leave was due to Mr McIlroy-Ranga.[1]
- [4]The Council appealed the decision of the QIRC but that appeal was dismissed[2] and orders were made as follows:
“1. The appeal is dismissed.
- The parties shall exchange submissions on costs by 4.00 pm on 28 August 2023.
- The parties shall exchange reply submissions on costs by 4.00 pm on 4 September 2023.
- Each party shall have leave to file and serve an application for leave to make submissions on costs by 4.00 pm on 18 September 2023.
- In the absence of any application being filed by 4.00 pm on 18 September 2023, the question of costs will be decided on the written submissions without further oral hearing.”
- [5]On 24 August 2023, written submissions on costs were filed by the Council. The Council submits that there should be no order as to costs. Mr McIlroy-Ranga has not filed submissions on costs.
- [6]No party has made application for leave to make oral submissions on costs.
- [7]Therefore, the question of costs ought to be determined upon consideration of the written submissions that have been received from the Council.
- [8]Section 545 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (IR Act) empowers this Court and the QIRC to make orders as to costs of proceedings. That section provides, relevantly here:
“545 General power to award costs
- A person must bear the person’s own costs in relation to a proceeding before the court or commission.
- However, the court or commission may, on application by a party to the proceeding, order—
- a party to the proceeding to pay costs incurred by another party if the court or commission is satisfied—
- the party made the application or responded to the application vexatiously or without reasonable cause; or
- it would have been reasonably apparent to the party that the application or response to the application had no reasonable prospect of success; or …”
- [9]The Council’s appeal was dismissed upon a determination of the proper construction of various provisions of the IR Act. While the construction advanced by the Council was not accepted:
- there is no provision in the IR Act which expressly determined the question that was raised on the appeal;
- the argument advanced by the Council was sensible although not ultimately correct;
- the appeal was not made vexatiously or without reasonable cause;
- extensive argument was heard on the appeal and it could not be said to be reasonably apparent to the Council that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
- [10]In the circumstances, there should be no order as to costs of the appeal.
Order
- [11]There be no order as to costs of the appeal.