Australian Concert and Entertainment Security Pty Ltd Trading as ACES Group v Michael Alkan

[2025] FWC 1922

[2025] FWC 1922

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.401 – Costs orders against lawyers and paid agents

Australian Concert And Entertainment Security Pty Ltd Trading AS ACES Group

v

Michael Alkan

(U2024/5756)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SLEVIN SYDNEY, 4 JULY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - Costs

1. On 19 June 2025 I published my decision to order that Mr Michael Alkan, the principal of HR Experts pay costs to Australian Concert and Entertainment Security Pty Ltd (ACES) under s401(1A)(b) of the Fair Work Act2009[1]. I proposed that the quantum of the order be in the sum of $28,952.20.  Mr Alkan had sought in the proceedings, and was granted, an opportunity to make further submissions on the quantum of any proposed order.

2. In a brief written submission Mr Alkan contended that indemnity costs should not be ordered. He further submitted that the claim for counsel’s fees was a single line item without an invoice  and so he was unable to test the conclusion reached that the sum was fair and reasonable. Mr Alkan requested that the amount for counsel fees be reduced by $6,000. No reasons are given  for that request.

3. ACES submitted that the proposal to award costs on an indemnity basis subject to the constraints imposed by s. 403 of the Act and Schedule 3.1 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 was a proper exercise of the discretion and that noting in Mr Alkan’s submission warrants a departure from that view.

4. The reasons to award costs on an indemnity basis are set out in the earlier Decision. I do not repeat them, and I do not propose to revisit them.  Put briefly, I formed the view that the conduct that led to the findings that the preconditions in s. 401(1A) also justified costs being awarded on an indemnity basis, within the constraints arising from s. 403.

5. Mr Alkan’s complaint that he was unable to respond to the conclusion that counsel’s fees were fair and reasonable because all that was provided was a single line cost item is rejected.  The involvement of counsel in the matter was well known to Mr Alkan given the attendances at the interlocutory hearings and is evidence in the schedule of costs attached to the application for costs. Mr Alkan has made no submissions that those attendances were not fair and reasonable.

6. I will make an order that Mr Alkan pay the costs that he caused ACES to incur due to his unreasonable acts and omissions in connection with the conduct or continuation of Mr Ejaz’s unfair dismissal claim in the sum of $28,952.20. An order to that effect will issue separately.       

   
   DEPUTY PRESIDENT

   Appearances:

   Mr J McLean of Counsel and Ms N Town, Solicitor for the Applicant (Costs)
   Mr M Alkan, the Respondent (Costs) on his own behalf.

   Final written submissions:

   3 July 2025

   
   

   [1] [2025] FWC 1696

   Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

   <PR788919>