INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Singh v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2020] ICQ 009	
PARTIES:	SURILA DEVI SINGH
(applicant)
v
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR
(respondent)	
FILE NO:	C/2019/16	
PROCEEDING:	Appeal	
DELIVERED ON:	12 June 2020	
HEARING DATE:	21 October 2019, written submissions filed on 4 November 2019 and 18 November 2019	
MEMBER:	Martin J, President	
ORDER:	The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $10,115.	
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the Industrial Commissioner dismissed the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Regulator rejecting her application for compensation – where the applicant applied to appeal to the Industrial Court – where the Industrial Court dismissed the application to appeal – where the respondent sought costs under s 563 of the  Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – whether the applicant made the application vexatiously or without reasonable cause
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 563	
APPEARANCES:	Mr R Singh given leave to appear for the applicant
Mr P O’Neil of Counsel directly instructed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator	

[1]	
[1]	On 4 January 2019, Industrial Commissioner Black dismissed the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Regulator rejecting her application for compensation. 
[2]	On 21 October 2019, I dismissed her application to appeal and invited the parties to provide written submissions with respect to the question of costs. 
[3]	Section 563 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 allows the court to order a party to pay costs incurred by another party only if satisfied that the party made the application vexatiously or without reasonable cause.
[4]	In this case, I am satisfied that the applicant’s appeal was brought vexatiously and without reasonable cause for the following reasons:
(a)	the application to appeal made baseless and scandalous allegations against the Commissioner,
(b)	the application to appeal made serious, but spurious, allegations of misconduct against the respondent and the respondent’s legal representation,
(c)	the application was lodged 152 days out of time and no attempt was made to obtain an extension,
(d)	the argument for the applicant was that the Commissioner had made various errors of fact but those errors were not identified and leave was not sought to bring an appeal on the basis of error of fact, and
(e)	the applicant sought to argue her appeal on a completely different basis to that which was apparently set out in her written submissions.
[5]	The application to appeal did not identify any error of law or any excess or want of jurisdiction. 
[6]	The applicant does not propose any arguments to answer those set out above and merely asserts that her application was not made vexatiously or without reasonable cause. She goes on to argue, without any basis whatever, that the respondent’s application for costs is vexatious and malicious.
[7]	This is a case which clearly comes within s 563(1) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $10,115.