Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway
[2017] QCA 138
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
- Appeal Determined - Special Leave Refused (HCA)
- Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway[2017] QCA 138
- Add to List
Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway[2017] QCA 138
Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway[2017] QCA 138
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017] QCA 138 |
PARTIES: | THE CORPORATION OF THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF BRISBANE (appellant) v RACHEL LOUISE GREENWAY (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | Appeal No 8913 of 2016 DC No 1047 of 2015 |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | General Civil Appeal – Further Orders |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court at Brisbane – [2016] QDC 195 |
DELIVERED ON: | 20 June 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Heard on the papers |
JUDGES: | Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Bond J Judgment of the Court |
ORDERS: | It is further ordered that:
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – REGULATED COSTS: GROSS OR FIXED COSTS, LUMP SUM ORDERS OR CAPPING ORDERS AND LIKE MATTERS – PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES – where the appellant was wholly successful on appeal and had judgment entered against the respondent – where the Court ordered the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs unless written submissions seeking a different order were filed within 14 days of the judgment – where the respondent filed written submissions seeking part of its costs at first instance on the basis of s 313 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the appellant did not file written submissions – whether the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs up until the date when the appellant made a written final offer which was not accepted by the respondent Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 313 |
COUNSEL: | No appearance for the appellant No appearance for the respondent, the respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers |
SOLICITORS: | No appearance for the appellant Slater and Gordon for the respondent |
- THE COURT: On 26 May 2017 the Court delivered its judgment in which the appeal was allowed and consequential orders were made. It was further ordered that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs unless written submissions seeking a different order were filed within 14 days.
- Within that period, the respondent filed a written submission which was to this effect:
- Section 310 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) provides that, amongst other sections, s 312 of the Act applies to a claim by a worker where they have a DPI of 20% or more.
- The respondent was issued with a Notice of Assessment for a DPI of 20%.
- By s 313, if the insurer makes a written final offer which is not accepted, the claim is dismissed and the Court is satisfied that the insurer was at all material times willing and able to carry out what was proposed in the written final offer, the Court must:
- order the insurer to pay the claimant’s costs, calculated on the standard basis, up to and including the day of service of the written final offer; and
- order the claimant to pay the insurer’s costs, calculated on the standard basis, after the day of service of the written final offer.
- Written final offers were exchanged on 17 February 2015.
- Consequently, the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs up to that date and the respondent should pay the appellant’s costs from that date.
- No submission on costs has been received from the appellant. Therefore the Court will act upon the factual premises of the respondent’s submission and will make the orders which the respondent has sought.
- The provisional order for costs made on 26 May was for the costs of the appeal. That order can and should stand, consistently with the respondent’s written submission. It will be further ordered that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis of the proceeding in the District Court up to and including 17 February 2015 and that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs on the standard basis of the proceeding in the District Court from 18 February 2015.