Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Employment Advocate [2001] FCA 1767

Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Employment Advocate [2001] FCA 1767

The costs application was refused because, even assuming that the s 347(1) threshold was satisfied, the circumstances did not justify an adverse costs order. The respondent did not raise incompetence, argued the merits, supported the leave application, and adopted the appellants' submissions on leave. The failed leave application was premature, but it was not shown to be without reasonable cause or an abuse of process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs in a Matter Arising Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / After Refusal of Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Declarations That the Appellants Contravened S 298 P(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)
Outcome
Application for costs refused.
Legal Topics
['costs in Proceedings Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'vexatious Proceedings or Proceedings Instituted Without Reasonable Cause' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Declarations']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Proceedings Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'vexatious Proceedings or Proceedings Instituted Without Reasonable Cause' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Declarations']

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

Application for Costs in a Matter Arising Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / After Refusal of Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Declarations That the Appellants Contravened S 298 P(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants instituted the appeal vexatiously or without reasonable cause within s 347(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' 'Whether the application for leave to appeal was made without reasonable cause because it had no substantial prospects of success.' 'Whether, even if the threshold in s 347(1) was satisfied, the Court should exercise its discretion to order costs against the appellants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The costs application was refused because, even assuming that the s 347(1) threshold was satisfied, the circumstances did not justify an adverse costs order. The respondent did not raise incompetence, argued the merits, supported the leave application, and adopted the appellants' submissions on leave. The failed leave application was premature, but it was not shown to be without reasonable cause or an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for costs be refused.']