Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 1090

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 1090

No costs order was made because the Court was not satisfied that the Commissioner instituted the proceeding without reasonable cause or that an unreasonable act or omission by the Commissioner caused ADCO to incur costs. The identity of the employer raised complex issues of fact and law and the material available at commencement did not point inexorably to failure on that issue. ADCO had admitted that Surf City Cranes Pty Ltd was the employer, so the identity of the employer was not an issue until ADCO later amended its defence. The complained-of redactions and correspondence did not establish conduct within s 570(2)(b), and ADCO had not shown that such conduct caused it to incur costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Proceeding Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Post Judgment Determination of Costs After Dismissal of the Originating Application
Outcome
There be no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Under S 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'proceedings Instituted Without Reasonable Cause' 'unreasonable Act or Omission Causing Costs' 'model Litigant Obligations' 'pleadings and Admissions' 'discovery and Redactions']
['employment & Industrial Relations' 'costs'] ['costs Under S 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'proceedings Instituted Without Reasonable Cause' 'unreasonable Act or Omission Causing Costs' 'model Litigant Obligations' 'pleadings and Admissions' 'discovery and Redactions']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Proceeding Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Post Judgment Determination of Costs After Dismissal of the Originating Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commissioner instituted the proceeding without reasonable cause for the purposes of s 570(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether any unreasonable act or omission of the Commissioner caused ADCO to incur costs for the purposes of s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether ADCO should receive costs thrown away by the disruption and adjournment of the June 2016 trial dates, including on an indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

No costs order was made because the Court was not satisfied that the Commissioner instituted the proceeding without reasonable cause or that an unreasonable act or omission by the Commissioner caused ADCO to incur costs. The identity of the employer raised complex issues of fact and law and the material available at commencement did not point inexorably to failure on that issue. ADCO had admitted that Surf City Cranes Pty Ltd was the employer, so the identity of the employer was not an issue until ADCO later amended its defence. The complained-of redactions and correspondence did not establish conduct within s 570(2)(b), and ADCO had not shown that such conduct caused it to incur costs.

Court Disposition

There be no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to costs.']