All Trades Queensland Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 23

All Trades Queensland Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 23

The application was not instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause: although the Court rejected the applicants' construction of the relevant legislative provisions, it made no finding that the application had "no merit", the proceeding involved difficult and complex legislation, and the respondents' submissions on construction were fairly arguable. Therefore there should be no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Costs Application / Costs Following Dismissal of the Applicants' Further Amended Originating Application
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['fair Work Act Costs Restrictions' 'proceedings Instituted Vexatiously or Without Reasonable Cause' 'better Off Overall Test' 'construction of Transitional Legislation']
['industrial Law' 'employment and Industrial Relations' 'costs'] ['fair Work Act Costs Restrictions' 'proceedings Instituted Vexatiously or Without Reasonable Cause' 'better Off Overall Test' 'construction of Transitional Legislation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law Costs Application / Costs Following Dismissal of the Applicants' Further Amended Originating Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should be ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application under s 570(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)." 'Whether the proceedings were instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was not instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause: although the Court rejected the applicants' construction of the relevant legislative provisions, it made no finding that the application had "no merit", the proceeding involved difficult and complex legislation, and the respondents' submissions on construction were fairly arguable. Therefore there should be no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['There will be no order as to the costs of the application.']