Somerville Retail Services Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2)

[2011] VSCA 188

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Costs
2. › Special costs orders
3. › Solicitor and client costs
1. Costs
2. › Special costs orders
3. › Indemnity costs distinguished
1. Costs
2. › Hopeless appeal
3. › No prospect of success
1. Costs
2. › Special costs orders
3. › Prior notice to opponent

Quick Take

The Court of Appeal ordered solicitor-and-client costs (rather than indemnity costs) against the unsuccessful appellant, holding the appeal was hopeless because the appellant failed to advance any alternative classification under the Premiums Order that more closely corresponded to the predominant workplace activity. The Court accepted that a respondent ought to be encouraged to warn an appellant that an appeal is hopeless before seeking a special costs order, but held that the absence of such warning did not preclude a special costs order — rather, it moderated the order from indemnity to solicitor-and-client costs.