Video Intercom Pty Limited v. George Sukkar [2006] NSWIRComm 1120

Video Intercom Pty Limited v. George Sukkar [2006] NSWIRComm 1120

Costs application should not proceed until the outcome of the appeal, as s.181(2)(c) is the exclusive avenue for costs in Part 6 matters, and the requirements for labelling an application as frivolous, vexatious or refusing to settle are narrowly framed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Costs in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings / Costs Application Adjourned Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for costs adjourned pending appeal outcome.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'unfair Dismissal' 'jurisdiction of Industrial Relations Commission']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['costs' 'unfair Dismissal' 'jurisdiction of Industrial Relations Commission']

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 Application for Costs in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings / Costs Application Adjourned Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded against Mr Sukkar under s.181(2)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'Whether proceedings were frivolous or vexatious or involved an unreasonable failure to settle' 'Applicability of s.181(2)(a) and s.181(2)(b) in Part 6 applications']

Ratio Decidendi

Costs application should not proceed until the outcome of the appeal, as s.181(2)(c) is the exclusive avenue for costs in Part 6 matters, and the requirements for labelling an application as frivolous, vexatious or refusing to settle are narrowly framed.

Court Disposition

Application for costs adjourned pending appeal outcome.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings on costs application adjourned for mention on 2 August 2006.']