Coghill v Indochine Resources Pty Ltd (No 3) - [2015] FCA 1131

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Coghill v Indochine Resources Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 1131

Citation: Coghill v Indochine Resources Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 1131

Parties: ROBERT EDMOND COGHILL v INDOCHINE RESOURCES PTY LTD ACN 119 808 007

File number: NSD 206 of 2014

Judge: KATZMANN J

Date of judgment: 23 October 2015

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW — costs — proceedings arising out of allegedly unlawful dismissal — relief sought by employee against employer under Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Pt 2–2 for contraventions of National Employment Standards and for damages for breach of employment contract — applicant employee successful —where at hearing claim under the Fair Work Act argued in the alternative — whether s 570 of Fair Work Act precluded award of costs — whether applicant employee a party to proceedings “in relation to” a matter arising under the Act within meaning of s 570(1)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — interest on award of damages — costs in proceedings claiming relief under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and at common law — where at hearing claim under Fair Work Act argued in the alternative — whether award of costs precluded under s 570 of the Act

Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 562, 563, 570
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 32, 43
Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) s 347
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 824

Cases cited:
Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Fair Work Australia (No 2) (2012) 203 FCR 430
Bostik (Australia) Pty Ltd v Gorgevski (No 2) (1992) 36 FCR 439
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1994) 47 FCR 300
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (No 2) (2013) 209 FCR 464
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570

Goldman Sachs JBWere Services Pty Ltd v Nikolich (2007) 163 FCR 62
Melbourne Stadiums Ltd v Sautner [2015] FCAFC 20; 317 ALR 665
Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457
Poulos v Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd (1986) 68 ALR 537
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration;Ex parte Barrett (1945) 70 CLR 141
Re Polites; Ex parte Hoyts Corp Pty Ltd (No 2) (1991) 173 CLR 78
Stanley v Service to Youth Council Inc (No 3) (2014) 225 FCR 357
Thompson v Hodder (1989) 21 FCR 467
Tristar Steering and Suspension Australia Ltd v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (No 2) (2007) 159 FCR 274
Tristar Steering and Suspension Australia Ltd v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2007) 158 FCR 104

Date of hearing: Heard on the papers

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 38

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr D W Robertson

Solicitor for the Appellant: DC Legal Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Coghill v Indochine Resources Pty Ltd (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] FCA 1131
Decision Date: 23 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Coghill, brought proceedings against Indochine Resources Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed. The dispute encompassed claims under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for contraventions of the National Employment Standards, as well as claims for damages under common law for breach of contract. Mr Coghill was successful in his claims, resulting in a judgment in his favour.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of section 570 of the Fair Work Act, which restricts the ability of employees to recover costs in proceedings related to the Act. The court had to determine whether Mr Coghill, having successfully argued his claim under the Fair Work Act in the alternative with a common law claim, was precluded from recovering costs under the Act. Additionally, the court considered whether Mr Coghill was a party to proceedings “in relation to” a matter arising under the Act within the meaning of section 570(1).

The court found that the applicant's claim was not precluded from recovering costs under the Fair Work Act. The court held that section 570 did not prevent an award of costs in proceedings where the relief sought was argued in the alternative under both the Act and common law. The court also concluded that Mr Coghill was not a party to proceedings “in relation to” a matter arising under the Act within the meaning of section 570(1), as the proceedings were not solely related to the Act.

Judgment was entered in favour of Mr Coghill for the sum of USD 3,162,563 and AUD 7,673. The court made no order as to costs, reflecting the interpretation of section 570 in the context of these proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment be entered in the applicant’s favour in the sum of USD 3,162,563 and AUD 7,673.

2. There be no order as to costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:	Coghill v Indochine Resources Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 1131
Parties:	ROBERT EDMOND COGHILL v INDOCHINE RESOURCES PTY LTD ACN 119 808 007
File number:	NSD 206 of 2014
Judge:	KATZMANN J
Date of judgment:	23 October 2015
Catchwords:	INDUSTRIAL LAW — costs — proceedings arising out of allegedly unlawful dismissal — relief sought by employee against employer under Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Pt 2–2 for contraventions of National Employment Standards and for damages for breach of employment contract — applicant employee successful —where at hearing claim under the Fair Work Act argued in the alternative — whether s 570 of Fair Work Act precluded award of costs — whether applicant employee a party to proceedings “in relation to” a matter arising under the Act within meaning of s 570(1) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — interest on award of damages — costs in proceedings claiming relief under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and at common law — where at hearing claim under Fair Work Act argued in the alternative — whether award of costs precluded under s 570 of the Act
Legislation:	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 562, 563, 570 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 32, 43 Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) s 347 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 824
Cases cited:	Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Fair Work Australia (No 2) (2012) 203 FCR 430 Bostik (Australia) Pty Ltd v Gorgevski (No 2) (1992) 36 FCR 439 Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1994) 47 FCR 300 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (No 2) (2013) 209 FCR 464 Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570 Goldman Sachs JBWere Services Pty Ltd v Nikolich (2007) 163 FCR 62 Melbourne Stadiums Ltd v Sautner [2015] FCAFC 20; 317 ALR 665 Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457 Poulos v Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd (1986) 68 ALR 537 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration;Ex parte Barrett (1945) 70 CLR 141 Re Polites; Ex parte Hoyts Corp Pty Ltd (No 2) (1991) 173 CLR 78 Stanley v Service to Youth Council Inc (No 3) (2014) 225 FCR 357 Thompson v Hodder (1989) 21 FCR 467 Tristar Steering and Suspension Australia Ltd v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (No 2) (2007) 159 FCR 274 Tristar Steering and Suspension Australia Ltd v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2007) 158 FCR 104
Date of hearing:	Heard on the papers
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	38
Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr D W Robertson
Solicitor for the Appellant:	DC Legal Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Respondent:	The Respondent did not appear