Ross v A E R Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWIRComm 1190

Ross v A E R Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWIRComm 1190

The application was not frivolous or vexatious, was not instituted without reasonable cause, and the applicant did not unreasonably fail to agree to settlement. In the circumstances, there should be no order as to costs.

Parties
Applicant: Helen Miriam Ross; Respondent: A E R Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal (costs Application) / Post Substantive Judgment; Decision on Costs
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Costs, Credit of Witnesses, Settlement Offers, Frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings
Industrial Law Unfair Dismissal Costs Credit of Witnesses Settlement Offers Frivolous or 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helen Miriam Ross

Applicant

A E R Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal (costs Application) / Post Substantive Judgment; Decision on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's unfair dismissal application was frivolous or vexatious
  2. 2 Whether the applicant instituted proceedings without reasonable cause
  3. 3 Whether the applicant unreasonably failed to agree to a reasonable settlement offer

Ratio Decidendi

The application was not frivolous or vexatious, was not instituted without reasonable cause, and the applicant did not unreasonably fail to agree to settlement. In the circumstances, there should be no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • No order as to costs.