Can TASCAT extend or abridge time limits when objecting to a bill of costs?

Introduction

In Tasmanian workers compensation proceedings, the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) may order an unsuccessful party to pay the successful party’s legal costs. In the event costs are not agreed between the parties, the process involves the successful party serving a bill of costs on the unsuccessful party, who then has 14 days to raise any objections, pursuant to regulation 16 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Regulations 2021 (the Regulations).

Until recently, it had not been determined whether the Tribunal has the power to extend this 14-day objection period. This issue was considered by Senior Member Thompson in the June 2025 decision of QX v Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd [2025] TASCAT 120.

Background

Following a worker’s successful referral under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act), the Tribunal ordered the employer to pay the worker’s legal costs. In accordance with regulation 16(1) of the Regulations, the employer had 14 days from receipt to lodge a notice of objection. Failure to do so results in a deemed acceptance of the bill.

In this case, the bill of costs was served on 28 January 2025, making 11 February 2025 the final day for objection. The employer lodged its objection two days late on 13 February 2025. They simultaneously applied for an extension of time under rule 11 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Rules 2021 (the Rules), which permits the Tribunal to extend or abridge time limits where appropriate.

The employer argued that rule 11 allowed the Tribunal to extend the time for an objection to a bill of costs. The worker, however, contended that the general power of rule 11 to extend time is excluded by the operation of regulation 16 of the Regulations.

Consideration

Senior Member Thompson considered the Tasmanian Supreme Court decision in State of Tasmania v Tripptree [2023] TASSC 16 (Triptree), which addressed extensions of time (albeit in a different context). Given Triptree did not directly consider rule 11 or its interaction with regulation 16, Senior member Thompson found the decision to be persuasive, although not binding.

In this case, Senior Member Thompson ultimately held that regulation 16 and rule 11 are not inconsistent. Therefore, rule 11 confers a discretionary power to extend time, establishing that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the employer’s objection.

Conclusion

The Tribunal determined that it does have jurisdiction to extend the time for objecting to a bill of costs under rule 11.

Senior Member disagreed with the worker’s submission that such an interpretation would allow the Tribunal to extend time ‘at large’ and referenced well-established common law factors relevant to exercising such a discretion. Further to this, it was acknowledged that other sections of the Act also conferred a broad power in the Tribunal to extend time over a range of other matters; as such, Senior Member saw no justification to read down that power in the context of rule 11.

Ultimately, the substantive issue between the parties was not resolved, as they were directed to file written submissions addressing the merits of the extension application. At the time of writing, the Tribunal has not yet articulated the criteria it will apply in determining whether to grant such an extension.

Key takeaways

This decision confirms the Tribunals discretion to extend the time when responding to and taking issue to a bill of costs. This take-home for participants within Tribunal proceedings is that timely compliance with procedural deadlines in accordance with the Act and Regulations remains essential, especially in dealing with responding to a bill of costs.

Whilst the Tribunal has determined that applications for an extension may be considered under rule 11, the relevant factors they will consider before granting such an extension remains uncertain. But considerations of fairness and justice to the parties are likely to be influential.

This decision should serve as a reminder that while procedural rules can grant relief in certain circumstances, practitioners should not rely on discretion alone and must remain vigilant in meeting statutory deadlines. For practitioners who receive a bill of costs, they should be dealt with, and any objection should be served, in a timely manner.