Perigo v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer and Anor (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 6

Perigo v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer and Anor (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 6

Although the statutory cap on costs recoverable from the employer's insurer under clause 102 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2010 had to be considered and the indemnity costs rule should not be applied as a fetter on the Court's discretion, the competing considerations of justice favoured compensating the successful plaintiff for the costs incurred in succeeding against both defendants. Having considered the statutory context and the conduct of the hearing, the appropriate order was that both defendants jointly and severally pay the plaintiff's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs Following Personal Injuries Proceedings / Costs Determination After Principal Judgment and Entry of Orders Save as to Costs
Outcome
Defendants ordered jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['joint and Several Costs Orders' 'indemnity Costs Rule' 'statutory Cap on Employer Costs Liability' 'costs Discretion Under S 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005']
['costs' 'personal Injuries' 'workers Compensation'] ['joint and Several Costs Orders' 'indemnity Costs Rule' 'statutory Cap on Employer Costs Liability' 'costs Discretion Under S 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005']

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 Following Personal Injuries Proceedings / Costs Determination After Principal Judgment and Entry of Orders Save as to Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, after the plaintiff succeeded against both defendants, the defendants should be ordered jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff's costs." "Whether the statutory cap on recoverable costs against the employer's insurer under clause 102 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2010 should lead to an apportioned costs order against the second defendant."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the statutory cap on costs recoverable from the employer's insurer under clause 102 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2010 had to be considered and the indemnity costs rule should not be applied as a fetter on the Court's discretion, the competing considerations of justice favoured compensating the successful plaintiff for the costs incurred in succeeding against both defendants. Having considered the statutory context and the conduct of the hearing, the appropriate order was that both defendants jointly and severally pay the plaintiff's costs.

Court Disposition

Defendants ordered jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The defendants jointly and severally pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings."]