PIA Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v King (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 53
None of the bases upon which the respondent seeks costs—late withdrawal of contentions, rejection of offers of compromise, or failure to pay penalty amount—constitute unreasonable acts or omissions under s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009; therefore, no order for costs can be made.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal and Cross Appeal / Costs Application Following Determination of Appeal and Cross Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for costs dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['costs in Fair Work Proceedings' 'application of S 570 of Fair Work Act 2009' 'reasonableness of Acts/omissions for Costs Orders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Costs Application Following Determination of Appeal and Cross Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether any order for costs should be made in a fair work proceeding under s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009' 'Whether late withdrawal of contentions, rejection of offers of compromise, or failure to pay penalty amount constituted unreasonable acts or omissions justifying costs order']
Ratio Decidendi
None of the bases upon which the respondent seeks costs—late withdrawal of contentions, rejection of offers of compromise, or failure to pay penalty amount—constitute unreasonable acts or omissions under s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009; therefore, no order for costs can be made.
Court Disposition
Application for costs dismissed
Orders
- ["The respondent's application for a lump sum costs order be dismissed."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment