Keogh v CPB Contractors Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2024] NSWDDT 10

Keogh v CPB Contractors Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2024] NSWDDT 10

Orders regarding costs in NSW Tribunal proceedings are governed by the law of the forum, as costs are procedural; s 316 of the Queensland Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 does not fetter the Tribunal's discretion on costs because it is procedural and not substantive law, and preconditions for application of s 316 were not satisfied.

Parties
Plaintiff: Craig Andrew Keogh; First Defendant: CPB Contractors Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Campbell Mining Services Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Downer EDI Mining Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Downer Mining Regional (NSW) Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Dust Diseases Damages (post Judgment Costs Variation Application) / Post Judgment (application for Variation of Costs Order)
Outcome
Application for variation of existing costs orders dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff against applicants for variation.
Legal Topics
Dust Diseases Damages, Reduction of Damages for Workers Compensation, Choice of Law (substantive/procedural Distinction), Court Discretion on Costs, Effect of Queensland Workers Compensation Statute in NSW Proceedings
Tort Law Private International Law Workers Compensation Costs Law Dust Diseases Damages Reduction of Damages for Workers Compensation Choice of Law (substantive/procedural Distinction) Court Discretion on Costs +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Andrew Keogh

Plaintiff

CPB Contractors Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Campbell Mining Services Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Downer EDI Mining Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Downer Mining Regional (NSW) Pty Ltd

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Dust Diseases Damages (post Judgment Costs Variation Application) / Post Judgment (application for Variation of Costs Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages should be reduced to reflect workers compensation payments under Queensland law
  2. 2 Whether costs orders are circumscribed by s 316 of Queensland Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 in NSW Tribunal proceedings
  3. 3 Is costs law substantive or procedural law for choice of law purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Orders regarding costs in NSW Tribunal proceedings are governed by the law of the forum, as costs are procedural; s 316 of the Queensland Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 does not fetter the Tribunal's discretion on costs because it is procedural and not substantive law, and preconditions for application of s 316 were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application for variation of existing costs orders dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff against applicants for variation.

Orders

  • Dismiss the application made by the second defendant, and the first and third defendants in respect of their liability to the plaintiff as an employer in Queensland, for a variation of the existing costs orders.
  • Order the Applicants for the variation to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application.