Costs - worker's solicitor withdrawing application for review after seeking adjournment and seeking certificate of costs and disbursements - exempt employer objecting to costs - neither worker nor solicitor appearing to argue costs - arguments of exempt employer accepted - no costs to be awarded.

RE: CONTRERAS AND SOUTH AUSTRALIAN MEAT CORPORATION

CONTRERAS AND SOUTH AUSTRALIAN MEAT CORPORATION

Determination of Review Officer made ex tempore on 2nd April 1993

(Hearings, 1st December 1992 and 2nd April 1993)

This is the consideration of an application lodged on 16th July 1992 by Patricio Contreras as worker under a contract of service with the South Australian Meat Corporation. The application sought a review pursuant to the Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Act, 1986 ("the Act") of a decision allegedly made on 24th August 1990 by the employer, as an exempt employer under the Act, to refuse an application for workers compensation.

I note that the application for review was out of time but that time was extended by the Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Corporation in accordance with s.95(4) of the Act. The application came on for hearing before me on 1st December 1992, at which time the worker was represented by Mr. C.J. Pearce of counsel and the employer by Mr. M. Calligeros of counsel, and the matter was adjourned to 6th January 1993 on the worker's application.

On 3rd December, however, the worker's solicitor advised that he had received instructions to withdraw the application and sought a certificate of costs and disbursements. A certificate was issued by the Review and Appeals Administrator accordingly.

Subsequently, the employer's solicitors wrote to the Administrator objecting to costs being awarded in this matter.

As I indicated recently in the case of Mansfield and CSR Softwoods (1993) 6 WRO Determination 73/93; [1993] SAWCRP 73, certificates issued by the Administrator are of no legal force and are issued for the convenience and guidance of parties only. It is always open to either party to object and have the matter brought before a Review Officer unless a final award under s.92a has already been made by the Review Officer. I refer to Morris v. WorkCover, WCAT Decision A.77/1992; (1992) 167 LSJS 490; (1992) 4 WCATR 294; [1992] SAWCAT 77.

Accordingly, upon receipt of the employer's objection, the application for review was listed before me today for argument as to costs.

There is no appearance today by the worker or anyone on his behalf and no communication has been received. I am satisfied that hearing notices were sent to both the worker and his solicitors at their respective addresses on file on 8th March 1993 and that each notice included the passage "the hearing of the application will proceed immediately unless some party requests an adjournment and the Review Officer grants that request.... please note that if you do not attend the hearing, the matter is likely to proceed in your absence and may be determined against you."

I have considered the submissions contained in Mr. Calligeros' letter dated 3rd March 1993 and I have heard Ms. A. Carabelas of counsel for the employer today.

In the circumstances, pursuant to s.92a of the Act, I make no award of costs in relation to the worker's application lodged on 16th July 1992.

Pursuant to s.92a of the Act, I determine that no costs be awarded in this matter.

Any appeal against this determination must be lodged with the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal within one month of the receipt of this determination. Enquiries about appeals may be directed to the Registrar of the Tribunal, 8th Floor, Riverside Centre, North Terrace (phone: 207.0999) and forms for appeal are available from the same address.