Fair Work Ombudsman v Hu (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 175

Fair Work Ombudsman v Hu (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 175

The application for costs was refused because the appeal was not instituted without reasonable cause nor was the conduct of the Fair Work Ombudsman unreasonable so as to warrant a costs order under s 570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Costs Following Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Application for costs refused
Legal Topics
['costs' 'accessorial Liability' 'piecework Agreements' 'statutory Construction']
['employment Law' 'industrial Relations' 'practice and Procedure'] ['costs' 'accessorial Liability' 'piecework Agreements' 'statutory Construction']

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 / Application for Costs Following Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal was instituted without reasonable cause under s 570(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)' 'Whether the conduct of the appellant was unreasonable so as to cause costs to be incurred (s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth))']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for costs was refused because the appeal was not instituted without reasonable cause nor was the conduct of the Fair Work Ombudsman unreasonable so as to warrant a costs order under s 570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused

Orders

  • ["The Second and Third Respondents' application for an order for costs pursuant to s 570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be refused."]