Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Fair Work Ombudsman (The Botany Cranes Case) (No 2) [2023] FCAFC 56

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Fair Work Ombudsman (The Botany Cranes Case) (No 2) [2023] FCAFC 56

The respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal because the appellants succeeded in setting aside all orders challenged in the amended notice of appeal and succeeded on the grounds that were the main focus of the appeal. Their lack of success on some other grounds, and abandonment of several grounds, did not justify departing from the usual order that costs follow the event, particularly where most abandoned grounds were abandoned when written submissions were filed and some were abandoned in light of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13; 399 ALR 599.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal Costs Determination / Determined on the Papers Following Judgment Allowing Appeal
Outcome
The respondent must pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'mixed Success on Appeal' 'issues Based Costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'mixed Success on Appeal' 'issues Based Costs']

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

Appeal Costs Determination / Determined on the Papers Following Judgment Allowing Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent should pay the appellants' costs of the appeal under the usual order that costs follow the event." "Whether the appellants' lack of success on some grounds of appeal, and abandonment of some grounds, justified departing from the usual costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal because the appellants succeeded in setting aside all orders challenged in the amended notice of appeal and succeeded on the grounds that were the main focus of the appeal. Their lack of success on some other grounds, and abandonment of several grounds, did not justify departing from the usual order that costs follow the event, particularly where most abandoned grounds were abandoned when written submissions were filed and some were abandoned in light of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13; 399 ALR 599.

Court Disposition

The respondent must pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ["The respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal."]