Johnson v Monti-Haitsma Enterprises Pty Limited (in external administration) (No 2) [2014] FCA 1020

Johnson v Monti-Haitsma Enterprises Pty Limited (in external administration) (No 2) [2014] FCA 1020

The pursuit of the application for an extension of time was 'without reasonable cause' in light of the fundamental deficiencies in the applicant's case, justifying an order for costs under s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Parties
Applicant: Debra Johnson; Respondent: Monti-Haitsma Enterprises Pty Limited (in external administration)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Application
Outcome
Costs order against applicant maintained
Legal Topics
Costs in Fair Work Jurisdiction, Extension of Time to Appeal, Vexatious Proceedings
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs in Fair Work Jurisdiction Extension of Time to Appeal Vexatious Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Debra Johnson

Applicant

Monti-Haitsma Enterprises Pty Limited (in external administration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be ordered against the applicant under s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether pursuit of the application for extension of time was 'without reasonable cause'

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuit of the application for an extension of time was 'without reasonable cause' in light of the fundamental deficiencies in the applicant's case, justifying an order for costs under s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Costs order against applicant maintained

Orders

  • Order 2 made on 26 August 2014 requiring applicant to pay respondent's costs is not vacated