Helm v Sapphireone Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2024] FedCFamC2G 21

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Helm v Sapphireone Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2G 21

File number(s): SYG 2940 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE LAING

Date of judgment: 19 January 2024

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – COSTS – application for costs pursuant to s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) following a successful summary dismissal application some years into the proceedings – discretionary considerations – where some unreasonable conduct was found, but impact on costs was likely to have been limited – where it was not unreasonable for the summary dismissal application to have been opposed – costs application dismissed

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 570

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.04 and 13.05

Cases cited:
Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 879; (2007) 162 FCR 392

Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam Law 93; [1975] 3 All ER 333

Helm v Sapphireone Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 915

Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353

Murphy v Innovior Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCCA 258

Re The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia; Ex parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6; (1997) 186 CLR 622

Ryan v Primesafe [2015] FCA 8; (2015) 323 ALR 107

Sagona v R & C Piccoli Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCCA 2925

Traverse Alpine Operations Pty Ltd v Simpson [2022] FCA 1365

Trustee for The MTGI Trust v Johnston (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 190

Number of paragraphs: 44

Date of hearing: 13 December 2023

Place: Sydney

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms P Forster of Kennedys Law

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr N Furlan

Solicitor for the Respondents: Sasphire Legal
ORDERS

SYG 2940 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
LINDA MAXINE HELM

Applicant

AND:
SAPPHIREONE PTY LTD (ACN 003 419 930)

First Respondent

JOHN WILLIAM ADAMS

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LAING

DATE OF ORDER:

19 JANUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application in a Proceeding filed on 26 October 2023 be dismissed.

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 LAING:

The substantive application in this matter was dismissed on 6 October 2023 pursuant to rr 13.04(1)(e) and 13.05(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (FCFCA Rules): Helm v Sapphireone Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 915 (Judgment). The respondents in the substantive…

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 Helm v Sapphireone Pty Ltd (No 2) 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: [2024] FedCFamC2G 21
Decision Date: 19 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Helm brought a proceeding against Sapphireone Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The central dispute was related to an employment issue, specifically seeking summary dismissal on grounds of unfair dismissal. The case had been before the court for some time, and the applicant had eventually filed a successful summary dismissal application. After the successful summary dismissal, Helm applied for costs under section 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The application for costs raised several legal issues, including whether the court should exercise its discretion to award costs given the nature of the proceedings and the conduct of the parties. The central issue was whether the respondent's conduct was unreasonable enough to warrant an award of costs to the applicant.

The court considered various discretionary factors relevant to the award of costs. While it found some unreasonable conduct by the respondent, the impact on the proceedings was deemed to be limited. Moreover, the court noted that it was not unreasonable for the respondent to oppose the summary dismissal application. Given these considerations, the court determined that the justice of the case did not warrant the exercise of its discretion to award costs. The court emphasised that the proceedings had been complex and that opposing the summary dismissal application was not unreasonable.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for costs. The decision highlighted the need for a careful assessment of the circumstances and the conduct of the parties. The court concluded that the balance of the discretionary factors did not support the imposition of costs on the respondent. The application filed on 26 October 2023 was dismissed in its entirety.

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

Having regard to the above and to the circumstances of this case as a whole, on balance, I am not persuaded that I should exercise the discretion to make a costs order pursuant to s 570(2) of the FW Act. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, I am not persuaded that the justice of this case warrants a costs order being made under s 570(2) of the FW Act. The Application in a Proceeding filed on 26 October 2023 will therefore be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	SYG 2940 of 2020
Judgment of:	JUDGE LAING
Date of judgment:	19 January 2024
Catchwords:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – COSTS – application for costs pursuant to s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) following a successful summary dismissal application some years into the proceedings – discretionary considerations – where some unreasonable conduct was found, but impact on costs was likely to have been limited – where it was not unreasonable for the summary dismissal application to have been opposed – costs application dismissed
Legislation:	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 570 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.04 and 13.05
Cases cited:	Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 879; (2007) 162 FCR 392 Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam Law 93; [1975] 3 All ER 333 Helm v Sapphireone Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 915 Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353 Murphy v Innovior Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCCA 258 Re The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia; Ex parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6; (1997) 186 CLR 622 Ryan v Primesafe [2015] FCA 8; (2015) 323 ALR 107 Sagona v R & C Piccoli Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCCA 2925 Traverse Alpine Operations Pty Ltd v Simpson [2022] FCA 1365 Trustee for The MTGI Trust v Johnston (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 190
Number of paragraphs:	44
Date of hearing:	13 December 2023
Place:	Sydney
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms P Forster of Kennedys Law
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr N Furlan
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Sasphire Legal

SYG 2940 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	LINDA MAXINE HELM Applicant
AND:	SAPPHIREONE PTY LTD (ACN 003 419 930) First Respondent JOHN WILLIAM ADAMS Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE LAING
DATE OF ORDER:	19 JANUARY 2024