Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION: Cooma Rural Lands Protection Board v Phillips [2006] NSWIRComm 211 APPELLANT: Cooma Rural Lands Protection Board PARTIES: RESPONDENT: Winston Churchill Phillips FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 5823 of 2004 CORAM: Wright J President; Grayson DP; McLeay C CATCHWORDS: Costs - Issue as to scope of costs order made in appeal proceedings - Issue determined. CASES CITED: Cooma Rural Lands Protection Board v Phillips and Greenwood [2005] NSWIRComm 313 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/29/2006 APPELLANT: Mr P Kennedy Ebsworth & Ebsworth, Lawyers LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: Mr J Last Last and Maxwell, Solicitors JUDGMENT: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES FULL BENCH CORAM: WRIGHT J, President GRAYSON DP McLEAY C Thursday 29 June 2006 Matter No IRC 5823 of 2004 COOMA RURAL LANDS PROTECTION BOARD AND WINSTON CHURCHILL PHILLIPS Application by Cooma Rural Lands Protection Board for leave to appeal and appeal against a decision and orders of Commissioner Bishop given 7 September 2004 in Matter No IRC 6871 of 2002 SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION OF THE COMMISSION ON COSTS [2006] NSWIRComm 211 1 On 31 August 2005 we handed down our decision in these proceedings and in related appeal matters: see Cooma Rural Lands Protection Board v Phillips and Greenwood [2005] NSWIRComm 313. 2 At the conclusion of our decision we made a number of orders (at para [55]), the sixth order being in the following terms: 6. The Respondent in Matter No IRC2004/5823 is to pay the Appellant's costs from 30 April 2003 on a party and party basis as agreed or assessed. 3 The respondent (Mr Phillips) has challenged the above order in the Court of Appeal and the challenge is to be heard by that Court on 4 July 2006. An issue has now been raised by the parties to these proceedings as to the scope of the above order. 4 The solicitors for the appellant, Ebsworth & Ebsworth, seek clarification as to whether the order extended to the costs of the appeal or related only to the proceedings at first instance before Commissioner Bishop. 5 The appeal on the issue of costs was one of four rather complicated appeals heard together by the Full Bench. The appeal as to costs was dealt with at paras [39] to [45] and [52] to [54] of the decision. 6 It is clear, when regard is paid to these paragraphs, that the relevant order dealt with only the question of costs in the proceedings before Commissioner Bishop. The issue raised with the Full Bench is determined accordingly. ___________ 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.