Bilson v Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd; Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd v Bilson [No 2]
[2024] QCA 220 · Bowskill CJ, Boddice JA and Henry J
This decision dealt with the leftover costs and order-correction issues after appeals in a workers' injury case. Mr Bilson was injured and sued both his employer, Vatsonic Communications, and the Townsville City Council, with Vatsonic held 70% responsible and the Council 30%. Because the employer's damages were worked out under workers' compensation law and the Council's under common law, the two damages figures differed ($539,447 against Vatsonic and $590,802 against the Council). The Court fixed a wording error so each defendant only contributes a share based on the correct damages figure.
Vatsonic and WorkCover argued that although Mr Bilson had an indemnity costs order, the workers’ compensation regulation meant those costs still had to be assessed by reference to the ordinary court scale, not the vastly more substantial indemnity basis. In effect, they said s 136 of the Regulation cut down the value of the indemnity order for the claim against the employer. The Court rejected that, holding that the Regulation did not clearly override the UCPR indemnity costs rules, so Mr Bilson’s indemnity costs entitlement remained intact.
The Court split the defendants' shares of his costs and refused the Council's request to make the employer cover all the Council's costs, because that would conflict with the workers' compensation legislation. Mr Bilson recovered his costs in full.
Incident & injury
Injury caused to Mr Bilson; mechanism not detailed in this further-orders costs judgment
- Body regions
- Ophthalmic / visual, Eye / vision, Psychiatric (Left)
- Location
- Townsville
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 12 November 2024
- Claim type
- Hybrid (WCRA + PIPA)
- Proceeding
- Costs
- Plaintiff outcome
- Successful
- Occupation
- Vacuum truck operator (hydro vac truck) Machinery Operator / Driver
Outcome
On further orders following the appeals, the Court corrected order 7 under the slip rule (limiting Vatsonic's contribution to 70% of damages assessed against Vatsonic, $539,447.05), held that WCRR s 136 does not limit Mr Bilson's recovery of indemnity costs of the trial, ordered both defendants to pay his costs (Vatsonic indemnity, Council indemnity at first instance; standard basis on appeal), and apportioned costs 70/30 (trial) and 50/50 (appeals), rejecting the Council's bid for a contractual indemnity from Vatsonic as inconsistent with WCRA s 236B.
Defendants (2)
1 Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd
Employer (WCRA)
- Apportionment
- 70%
- Judgment against this defendant
- $539,447
2 Townsville City Council
Occupier (common law)
- Apportionment
- 30%
- Judgment against this defendant
- $590,802
Contribution orders
- Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd ordered to contribute $377,613 to Townsville City Council (Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) s 6(c) — Council entitled to recover 70% of damages assessed against Vatsonic ($539,447.05 x 70%))
- Townsville City Council ordered to contribute — to Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd (Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) s 6(c) — Vatsonic entitled to recover 30% of damages assessed against Vatsonic)
Key issues
Bilson v Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd; Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd v Bilson [No 2] [2024] QCA 220
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.