Habibi Arehjan v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] ICQ 27 | Case summary

Industrial Court of Queensland|2025-11-26|Before: Davis J

[1] Nadia Habibi Arehjan appealed the decision of Vice President O'Connor which dismissed three appeals by her from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Regulator.[1]
[2] Ms Habibi Arehjan's appeal to this Court was dismissed on 28 October 2025, when the following orders were made:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The respondent file and serve any written submissions and affidavits in support on the question of costs by 4.00 pm on 11 November 2025.
3. The appellant file and serve submissions and any affidavits in support on the question of costs by 4.00 pm on 25 November 2025.
4. Either party may by 4.00 pm on 2 December 2025 give notice to the other and to the Registrar of an intention to make oral submissions on costs and the Registrar shall then allocate a date for hearing the submissions.
5. In the absence of notice being given pursuant to order 4, the question of costs will be determined on the basis of any written submissions received and without further oral submissions.
[3] On 30 October 2025, there was received by the Registrar an email from Ms Annika Schultz, a senior appeals officer at the appeals unit of the Regulator. In the email, Ms Schultz referenced the orders made on 28 October and then stated:

[4] Ms Habibi Arehjan may have misunderstood the directions in relation to costs. Instead of filing submissions on the costs of the appeal, she sent to the Registrar[2] a list of medical expenses which she has fairly recently incurred.
[5] Absent any novel submission by the Regulator, costs of the appeal are not recoverable. As already observed, the Regulator does not seek an order for costs.[3] Ms Habibi Arehjan represented herself and, therefore, cannot claim costs.[4] In the circumstances, there is no live issue as to costs and an order should be made that there be no order as to costs even though the sunset period provided by Order 4 made on 28 October 2025 has not expired.
[6] The order is that there be no order as to costs.

[1] Habibi Arehjan v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2) [2023] QIRC 230.

[3] Consistently with Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No 2) [2021] ICQ 13; and Baigorri v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No 2) [2024] ICQ 7; and Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 558(3).

[4] See Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow (2019) 269 CLR 333 and Birketu Pty Ltd v Atanaskovic (2025) 99 ALJR 32, where the law was restated in the context of the Chorley principle: London Scottish Benefit v Society v Chorley (1884) 13 QBD 872.

Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

Habibi Arehjan v Workers' Compensation Regulator

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (2)