Lassithiotakis v Cardile and Ors [2008] NSWIRComm 148

Lassithiotakis v Cardile and Ors [2008] NSWIRComm 148

The respondents' 2003 payment for accepted underpayments and the 2007 settlement treating the termination payment as a redundancy payment amounted to admissions that the applicant had been owed statutory and contractual entitlements and that the termination was in truth by redundancy rather than misconduct. Those circumstances meant the applicant had successfully pursued relief of the kind claimed and the respondents had effectively surrendered, so justice required a usual costs order for the applicant despite the absence of a hearing on the merits and despite the March 2006 offer.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Concerning an Alleged Unfair Contract / Costs Determination After the Substantive Proceedings Were Settled by Agreement
Outcome
Usual costs order made in favour of the applicant, subject to the earlier costs order in favour of the respondents.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'costs Discretion After Settlement' 'no Hearing on the Merits' 'redundancy Payment' 'annual Leave Entitlements' 'commission Underpayment']
['industrial Law' 'costs' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'costs Discretion After Settlement' 'no Hearing on the Merits' 'redundancy Payment' 'annual Leave Entitlements' 'commission Underpayment']

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

Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Concerning an Alleged Unfair Contract / Costs Determination After the Substantive Proceedings Were Settled by Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should receive a costs order after the proceedings were settled without a hearing on the merits.' "Whether the applicant was the successful party or the respondents' payments and admissions amounted to a surrender." "Whether costs should be limited because of the respondents' March 2006 settlement offer."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' 2003 payment for accepted underpayments and the 2007 settlement treating the termination payment as a redundancy payment amounted to admissions that the applicant had been owed statutory and contractual entitlements and that the termination was in truth by redundancy rather than misconduct. Those circumstances meant the applicant had successfully pursued relief of the kind claimed and the respondents had effectively surrendered, so justice required a usual costs order for the applicant despite the absence of a hearing on the merits and despite the March 2006 offer.

Court Disposition

Usual costs order made in favour of the applicant, subject to the earlier costs order in favour of the respondents.

Orders

  • ['Costs as agreed or assessed in favour of the applicant, other than in relation to the costs the subject of the earlier order made in favour of the respondents by Justice Marks.']