Midson v Workers Compensation Commission & Ors (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 147

Midson v Workers Compensation Commission & Ors (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 147

Although the plaintiff succeeded on the summons, it was not fair to order the third defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs because the third defendant promptly filed a submitting appearance, genuinely took no active role, did nothing to increase the plaintiff's costs, was not the decision-maker and did not lead the decision-maker into error, could not by agreement obviate the need for the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, and was not a statutory body representing the Crown subject to model litigant expectations. The plaintiff, having unsuccessfully pursued the costs application, was ordered to pay the third defendant's costs of that application according to the usual costs...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Supreme Court Judicial Review Proceedings / Determination on the Papers After Orders Quashing the Medical Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
No costs order was made against the third defendant in relation to the summons, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the third defendant's costs of the costs application.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'submitting Appearance' 'costs Against Submitting Party' 'supervisory Jurisdiction Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw)' 'medical Appeal Panel Decision']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'judicial Review' 'workers Compensation'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'submitting Appearance' 'costs Against Submitting Party' 'supervisory Jurisdiction Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw)' 'medical Appeal Panel Decision']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Supreme Court Judicial Review Proceedings / Determination on the Papers After Orders Quashing the Medical Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful plaintiff should obtain a costs order against the third defendant, which filed a submitting appearance and took no active part in the summons.' "Whether the plaintiff should pay the third defendant's costs of defending the costs application."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff succeeded on the summons, it was not fair to order the third defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs because the third defendant promptly filed a submitting appearance, genuinely took no active role, did nothing to increase the plaintiff's costs, was not the decision-maker and did not lead the decision-maker into error, could not by agreement obviate the need for the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, and was not a statutory body representing the Crown subject to model litigant expectations. The plaintiff, having unsuccessfully pursued the costs application, was ordered to pay the third defendant's costs of that application according to the usual costs...

Court Disposition

No costs order was made against the third defendant in relation to the summons, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the third defendant's costs of the costs application.

Orders

  • ['I make no order for costs against the third defendant in relation to the summons.' "The plaintiff is to pay the third defendant's costs of this application as agreed or assessed."]