Core v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland [1992] ICQ 22 (1992) 141 QGIG 865

'. [865] The Queensland Government Industrial GazettePUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY Annual Subscription $280 ISSN O15 5-9362 Vol. 141] FRIDAY, 18 DECEMBER, 1992 [No. 31 QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL COURT Industrial Relations Act 1990--1991 s. 3.6 - Jurisdiction of Court s. 8.18 - Costs D.A. Core AND Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (No. C37 of 1991) JUSTICE MOYNIHAN, PRESIDENT 18 November 1992 Application for order for costs - Jurisdiction - Costs not asked at Appeal hearing - Wrongly anticipated opportunity to pursue question of costs - Question overlooked or misconception - Jurisdiction available to be exercised - Costs ordered. REPORT ON JUDGMENT In giving his Judgment from the Bench on 18 November 1992, the President said:- "This is an application for an order for costs in respect of a matter which was dealt with on 24 April this year when the applicant's appeal in respect of her claim for compensation was upheld. There was no order made as to costs on that occasion because none was asked for and on one view of it, an amendment to the notice of appeal may have removed the application for costs from the notice of appeal. I think the better view, however, is that the intention of the amendment was to deal with substantive matters and not to remove, from the relief sought, an application for costs. The material is not particularly satisfactory as to the explanation for the situation which has now arisen. It probably, however, founds the inference that costs were not asked for either because they were overlooked or because it was anticipated wrongly that there would be a subsequent opportunity to pursue the question of costs. I say, wrongly, because of course the way in which decisions in this jurisdiction are disposed of, is by publication in the Gazette without their being any formal reconvening of the Court. As I say, the material is not particularly satisfactory in respect of those matters but there's probably sufficient to found the inference that the question of costs wasn't abandoned but rather was overlooked or 138216-76 wa5 the subject of a misconception. Consequence of that seems to me that the Court, in disposing of the matter on 24 April, for reasons which I've explained, did not deal with the questions of costs and that the issue in the particular circumstances of this case, remains alive to be dealt with. In those circumstances, this is a case where costs would, in normal course, follow the event. In other words, the appellant, the applicant, had the matter been appropriately raised at the time, would have obtained an order for costs of the appeal and in respect of the proceedings below to be paid by the respondent. On the analysis of the circumstances to which I have referred, the jurisdiction remains available to be exercised and the appropriate order seems to me to be to permit the appellant to have her costs of the appeal and of the proceedings below. In the circumstances, I should've thought that there's no basis for the respondent Board to be required to pay the costs of today's proceedings. They being brought about by circumstances in which it had no part to play so far as the proceedings before me reveal. So those will be the orders.". Dated this eighteenth day of November, 1992. By the Court, [L.S.] M.J. CALLEN, Industrial Registrar. Appearances: Mr K.F. Holyoak (instructed by Messrs McGuiness, Wilson & Jensen, Solicitors, as town agents for Messrs Connolly, Struthers) for D.A. Core. Mr A. N. Preston (instructed by the Crown Solicitor) for Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland. Operative Date: NIA Report on Judgment - D.A. Gore and WCBQ Released: 2 December 1992 -- 1 of 1 --