Kennedy v Secretary, Department of Industry (No 2) [2015] FCA 884

Kennedy v Secretary, Department of Industry (No 2) [2015] FCA 884

On the facts known to the applicant when he commenced the judicial review proceeding, there was no objective merit in the proceeding and no reasonable prospects of success. The first respondent established that s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) did not protect the applicant from costs, and the applicant's self-represented status did not justify withholding costs. The applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Following Dismissal of an Application Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) for Judicial Review of Decisions of the Fair Work Commission / Costs Determined on the Papers After Final Judgment
Outcome
Costs awarded to the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['costs Against a Self Represented Litigant' 'proceedings Instituted Without Reasonable Cause' 'no Reasonable Prospects of Success' 'judicial Review for Jurisdictional Error' 'unfair Dismissal Extension of Time']
['costs' 'fair Work' 'administrative Law'] ['costs Against a Self Represented Litigant' 'proceedings Instituted Without Reasonable Cause' 'no Reasonable Prospects of Success' 'judicial Review for Jurisdictional Error' 'unfair Dismissal Extension of Time']

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 Following Dismissal of an Application Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) for Judicial Review of Decisions of the Fair Work Commission / Costs Determined on the Papers After Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) protected the applicant from an award of costs.' 'Whether the proceedings were instituted without reasonable cause because there were no reasonable prospects of success at the time they were brought.' "Whether the applicant's status as a self-represented litigant justified withholding costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts known to the applicant when he commenced the judicial review proceeding, there was no objective merit in the proceeding and no reasonable prospects of success. The first respondent established that s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) did not protect the applicant from costs, and the applicant's self-represented status did not justify withholding costs. The applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the first respondent.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the first respondent's costs, to be taxed if not agreed."]