Robinson v BMF Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2022] FCA 1519

Robinson v BMF Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2022] FCA 1519

The applicant, by making an interlocutory application to amend his statement of claim after the conclusion of trial and the closing of evidence, acted unreasonably within the meaning of s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), causing the second respondent to incur costs, and thus must pay the second respondent's costs of the interlocutory application. No wider costs order is warranted as the refusal of the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Costs Application Within an Employment Proceeding / Post Judgment, Costs Determination After Final Dismissal of Substantive Claim
Outcome
Costs order made in favour of the second respondent limited to costs of the interlocutory application of 4 May 2022. Wider costs order refused.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'unreasonable Act or Omission' 'fair Work Act S 570' 'calderbank Offers' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'case Management']
['employment Law' 'industrial Relations' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'unreasonable Act or Omission' 'fair Work Act S 570' 'calderbank Offers' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'case Management']

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

Interlocutory Costs Application Within an Employment Proceeding / Post Judgment, Costs Determination After Final Dismissal of Substantive Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should pay the second respondent's costs of the interlocutory application made on 4 May 2022" 'Whether a wider costs order should be made against the applicant for the proceeding from 28 April 2022']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, by making an interlocutory application to amend his statement of claim after the conclusion of trial and the closing of evidence, acted unreasonably within the meaning of s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), causing the second respondent to incur costs, and thus must pay the second respondent's costs of the interlocutory application. No wider costs order is warranted as the refusal of the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Costs order made in favour of the second respondent limited to costs of the interlocutory application of 4 May 2022. Wider costs order refused.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the interlocutory application made on 4 May 2022, to be fixed as a lump sum." 'By 4.00 pm on 12 January 2022, parties to file any proposed consent orders in relation to the lump sum for costs.' "If no consent orders are filed, the question of the appropriate lump...