Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales in Court Session CITATION : Inspector Ross Wolf v NAIQ Pty Limited [2004] NSWIRComm 274 PROSECUTOR: Inspector Ross Wolf PARTIES : DEFENDANT: NAIQ Pty Limited ACN 093 955 812 FILE NUMBER: IRC 6126 of 2003 CORAM: Schmidt J CATCHWORDS : Costs - prosecution's motion seeking joint trials refused - costs to follow the event HEARING DATES: 09/15/2004 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/17/2004 PROSECUTOR: Mr PM Skinner of counsel SOLICITORS: Legal Group WorkCover Authority of New South Wales LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: DEFENDANT: Mr SC Finnane of counsel SOLICITORS: Colin Biggers & Paisley JUDGMENT: - 2 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES IN COURT SESSION CORAM: Schmidt J DATE: 17 September 2004 Matter Number IRC 6126 of 2003 INSPECTOR ROSS WOLF v NAIQ PTY LIMITED Prosecution under s.10(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 JUDGMENT 1 Judgment was given in this matter on 20 August, in relation to a motion filed by the prosecution seeking that the matter be heard together with two other prosecutions (See Inspector Ross Wolf v Rockdale Beef Pty Ltd and Others [2004] NSWIRComm 244). I had decided at the hearing that here should be separate trials and gave reasons for that conclusion in relation to this defendant at [5] to [11]. It has been drawn to my attention that I omitted to deal with the application for costs made at the hearing by Mr Finnane, counsel appearing for NAIQ Pty Limited ('NAIQ'). 2 It was argued that a costs order should follow in NAIQ's favour, given that the prosecution had filed the motion seeking three separate trials, had later agreed to a separate trial with one defendant and had unsuccessfully sought a joint trial for the other two. Having lost that argument, the usual costs consequence should flow in favour of the defendant. 3 The prosecutor argued that there would be no costs order in the circumstances. NAIQ's position was only lately advanced and the litigation, in that context, was appropriate. 4 Like the conclusion which I reached in relation to the costs of the other defendant, Rockdale Beef Pty Ltd, in this case I take the view that the ordinary course, that costs should follow the event, should apply. Had the decision that there should be a separate trial resulted from an application made by the defendant, rather than that of the prosecution, that result would have followed in the ordinary course. I can see no good reason why there would be a departure from that approach, in these circumstances. ------------------------ DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.