Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v DP World Sydney Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 114

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v DP World Sydney Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 114

The costs application was dismissed because the proceeding was the first occasion on which the Court had been asked to decide the principles to be applied under s 443(5), the application involved a question of general importance under the Fair Work Act, and the Union's lack of success did not mean it had acted without reasonable cause in seeking judicial review.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order for Costs Under S 570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Application for Relief Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth)
Outcome
The application of the first, second, third and fourth respondents for costs was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs Under S 570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'judicial Review Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth)' 'principles Under S 443(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)']
['employment & Industrial Relations' 'fair Work' 'costs'] ['costs Under S 570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'judicial Review Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth)' 'principles Under S 443(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)']

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

Application for an Order for Costs Under S 570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Application for Relief Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first to fourth respondents should receive an order for costs under s 570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on the basis that the Union instituted the proceeding without reasonable cause.']

Ratio Decidendi

The costs application was dismissed because the proceeding was the first occasion on which the Court had been asked to decide the principles to be applied under s 443(5), the application involved a question of general importance under the Fair Work Act, and the Union's lack of success did not mean it had acted without reasonable cause in seeking judicial review.

Court Disposition

The application of the first, second, third and fourth respondents for costs was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application of the first, second, third and fourth respondents for an order for costs under s 570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be dismissed.']