FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Dixon v Pro-Tect Security Management Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2G 871
File number(s): SYG 1973 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE CAMERON Date of judgment: 6 June 2025 Catchwords: COSTS – Proceeding under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) - quantification of costs entitlement – assessment pursuant to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) general federal law scale of costs Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 45
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 sch 2, pt 1
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited: Dixon v Pro-tect Security Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2G 47
Dixon v Pro-Tect Security Management Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamC2G 854
Division: Fair Work Number of paragraphs: 10 Date of hearing: On the papers. Place: Sydney Solicitor for the Applicant: Slater and Gordon Solicitor for the Respondents: No appearance by or on behalf of the respondents ORDERS
SYG 1973 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: JAI DIXON
Applicant
AND: PRO-TECT SECURITY MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ABN 51145301391
First Respondent
TAREK SOBH
Second Respondent
STEVE MOSS
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE CAMERON
DATE OF ORDER:
6 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The first respondent pay the applicant’s costs assessed in the amount of $10,188.72.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judge Cameron
INTRODUCTION
This is the third judgment in this proceeding concerning the underpayment by the first respondent, Pro-Tect Security, of its erstwhile employee, Mr Dixon, the applicant. In the first judgment, Dixon v Pro-Tect Security Management Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamC2G 854, it was found that Pro-Tect Security had contravened the Security Services Industry Award 2010 and the Security Services Industry Award 2020 and so also s.45 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) by failing to pay Mr Dixon his casual loading and penalty rate entitlements during its employment of him. In the second judgment, Dixon v Pro-tect Security Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2G 47, it was found that Pro-Tect Security was liable to pay compensation and pecuniary penalties to Mr Dixon. It was also ordered to pay Mr Dixon 25% of his costs of the proceeding assessed in accordance with the Court’s scale as at the date of that judgment, 29 January 2024.
The parties were directed to file written submissions but only Mr Dixon did so.
These reasons concern the quantification of the costs payable by Pro-Tect Security to Mr Dixon.
LEGISLATION
Part 1 of sch.2 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) provides an event-based scale of costs for matters such as this one. As at 29 January 2024 it stated:
SUBMISSIONS
Filed with Mr Dixon’s written submissions in this stage of the proceeding was a report prepared by Blue Ribbon Legal setting out their calculation of his costs entitlement and the method underlying that calculation. Unfortunately, those costs were calculated by reference to the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), not the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), as ordered. Consequently, the report is of limited assistance. It is of no assistance in relation to the time costing of solicitors’ professional fees but does illuminate the disbursements Mr Dixon incurred, including counsel’s fees, to which I will return.
CONSIDERATION
By reference to this Court’s scale of costs and the following item numbers, I calculate the professional fees component of Mr Dixon’s costs order as follows:
Item
Description
Costs
1
Initiating or opposing an application up to the completion of the first court date
(a) 3,354.70
(b) 342.19
3
Interim or summary hearing—as a discrete event
Costs submissions
2,093.62
4
Dispute resolution litigation intervention
Mediation
3,517.80
5
Preparation for final hearing—one day matter
Contravention
7,543.02
5
Preparation for final hearing—one day matter
Compensation and penalty
7,543.02
8
Final hearing costs for attendance of solicitor at hearing to take judgment and explain orders
Contravention
(a) 342.19
(b) 342.19
8
Final hearing costs for attendance of solicitor at hearing to take judgment and explain orders
Compensation and penalty
(a) 342.19
(b) 342.19
8
Final hearing costs for attendance of solicitor at hearing to take judgment and explain orders
Costs
(a) 342.19
(b) 342.19
9
Daily hearing fee – short mention
Directions hearings on
10.12.21
22.12.21
28.01.22
22.04.22
31.05.22
342.19
342.19
342.19
342.19
342.19
9
Daily hearing fee – half day
Contravention hearing
1,255.75
TOTAL
29,414.19
In relation to disbursements, I accept the opinions expressed in the Blue Ribbon Legal report that the following disbursements are allowable in the amounts claimed:
Description
Costs
Counsel’s fees
9,240.00
Search fees
107.67
Filing fees
1,390.00
Service fees
603.00
TOTAL
11,340.67
These amounts total $40,754.86. A quarter of that figure is $10,188.72.
CONCLUSION
Based on the costs available to the applicant pursuant to the Cout’s scale and after reducing them by 75%, I assess the costs payable by the first respondent to the applicant at $10,188.72.
There will be an order accordingly.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Cameron. Associate:
Dated: 6 June 2025
- AGLC
- Dixon v Pro-Tect Security Management Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2G 871
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC2G 871
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court began by noting that a report prepared by Blue Ribbon Legal, outlining the calculation of Mr. Dixon's costs, was submitted with his written submissions. However, the court identified that the report's calculations were based on the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rather than the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), as mandated. This discrepancy rendered the report of limited assistance, particularly regarding the time costing of solicitors' professional fees. Nevertheless, the report did provide insight into the disbursements Mr. Dixon incurred, including counsel's fees, which the court considered in its assessment. The court proceeded to calculate the professional fees component of Mr. Dixon's costs order based on the Court’s scale of costs and specific item numbers. In relation to disbursements, the court accepted the opinions expressed in the Blue Ribbon Legal report regarding the allowable disbursements claimed by Mr. Dixon. After totaling these amounts and applying the required reduction of 75%, the court assessed the costs payable by the first respondent to Mr. Dixon at $10,188.72.
In conclusion, the court determined that the costs payable by the first respondent to Mr. Dixon, after applying the appropriate reduction, amounted to $10,188.72. This assessment was based on the costs available to Mr. Dixon pursuant to the Court’s scale and the specified reduction. The court made an order accordingly, directing the first respondent to pay the assessed costs to Mr. Dixon.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Filed with Mr Dixon’s written submissions in this stage of the proceeding was a report prepared by Blue Ribbon Legal setting out their calculation of his costs entitlement and the method underlying that calculation. Unfortunately, those costs were calculated by reference to the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), not the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), as ordered. Consequently, the report is of limited assistance. It is of no assistance in relation to the time costing of solicitors’ professional fees but does illuminate the disbursements Mr Dixon incurred, including counsel’s fees, to which I will return.CONSIDERATION By reference to this Court’s scale of costs and the following item numbers, I calculate the professional fees component of Mr Dixon’s costs order as follows: In relation to disbursements, I accept the opinions expressed in the Blue Ribbon Legal report that the following disbursements are allowable in the amounts claimed: These amounts total $40,754.86. A quarter of that figure is $10,188.72. CONCLUSION Based on the costs available to the applicant pursuant to the Cout’s scale and after reducing them by 75%, I assess the costs payable by the first respondent to the applicant at $10,188.72. There will be an order accordingly.