Baigorri v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2023] QIRC 201

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Baigorri v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2023] QIRC 201 PARTIES: Baigorri, Horacio Augusto (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent) CASE NO: WC/2021/204 PROCEEDING: Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator DELIVERED ON: 11 July 2023 DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Respondent's written submissions filed on 10 July 2023 MEMBER: HEARD AT: Merrell DP Brisbane ORDER: The Appellant pays the Respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $3,106.05. CATCHWORDS: WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – PERSONS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION – COSTS – appeal decision in favour of Respondent – whether costs of the hearing should follow the event – costs order in favour of Respondent LEGISLATION: CASES: Uniform Civil Procedure (Fees) Regulation 2019, s 24 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 558 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014, s 132 Baigorri v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 190 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No.2) [2021] ICQ 13 APPEARANCES: Mr P. O’Neill of Counsel directly instructed by Ms C. Shedden of the Respondent. Reasons for Decision Introduction [1] By decision dated 22 June 2023, I made an order confirming the review decision of the Respondent in this matter.1 I also ordered that the parties exchange and file written submissions on costs.2 [2] Only the Respondent has filed submissions on costs. [1] The Regulator submits, having regard to the decision of Davis J, President, in Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No.2) ('QNMU'),3 that: • the power to award the costs of the hearing comes from the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ('the Act'); • section 558(3) of the Act is limited to the costs of the hearing; and • the Commission must give reasons for the exercise of the discretion to award costs. [2] Those submissions are correct. [3] The decision in QNMU is also authority for the proposition that, having regard to the power to award costs under s 558(3) of the Act, costs ought ordinarily follow the event.4 [4] In the present case, the Respondent was wholly successful. There is no reason why the Appellant should not pay the Respondent's costs. [5] Having regard to scale C under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, schedule 2, part 2, as it applied as at 8 February 2023, the Respondent applies for the following itemised costs: • Item 8 (f), Counsel's fee to appear at hearing – 8 February 2023: $1,686.00; • Item 10(b), attendance of clerk – 8 February 2023: $306.75; • Item 13(a)(i), Disclosure – requesting: $365.90; and 1 Baigorri v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 190, [124]. 2 Ibid. 3 [2021] ICQ 13 ('QNMU'), [16]-[32]. 4 Ibid [16]. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 • Item 13(a)(ii), Disclosure – making: $660.85. [6] The Respondent also applies for the attendance allowance, provided for in s 24(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure (Fees) Regulation 2019, for its lay witness, in the amount of $86.55. Such an allowance is a cost that may be allowed.5 [7] The Regulator seeks an order that Mr Baigorri pay its costs of the hearing, fixed in the amount of $3,106.05. [8] Having regard to Mr Baigorri's appeal, the itemised costs sought by the Regulator are reasonable. Order [9] I make the following order: The Appellant pays the Respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $3,106.05. 5 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014, s 132(2)(b). -- 3 of 3 --