Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Clarke [2008] FCAFC 143

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Clarke [2008] FCAFC 143

The prohibition on costs orders in s 824(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) applies to both the respondent's and appellants' applications, as the proceedings were in a 'matter' arising under that Act, and the Court was not satisfied that the respondent had engaged in an unreasonable act or omission pursuant to s 824(2); thus, no order as to costs should be made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court Appellate Decision on Costs After Determination of Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Respondent's motion allowed; appellants' motion dismissed; no order as to costs for the relevant applications and judgment.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'unreasonable Act or Omission' 'appeals Procedure']
['employment Law' 'industrial Law' 'procedure'] ['costs' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'unreasonable Act or Omission' 'appeals Procedure']

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 / Full Court Appellate Decision on Costs After Determination of Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 824(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) prevents a costs order in these proceedings' 'Whether the respondent engaged in an unreasonable act or omission under s 824(2) justifying a costs order']

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition on costs orders in s 824(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) applies to both the respondent's and appellants' applications, as the proceedings were in a 'matter' arising under that Act, and the Court was not satisfied that the respondent had engaged in an unreasonable act or omission pursuant to s 824(2); thus, no order as to costs should be made.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion allowed; appellants' motion dismissed; no order as to costs for the relevant applications and judgment.

Orders

  • ['The motion of the respondent dated 12 April 2007 be allowed.' 'Order 2 of 9 February 2007 be set aside.' 'In lieu of Order 2 of 9 February 2007, there be no order as to costs.' 'The motion of the appellants dated 29 June 2007 be dismissed.' 'In respect of the judgment delivered on 8 June 2007, there be no order as...