Hill v Compass Ten Pty Ltd (No 3) - [2012] FCA 993

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hill v Compass Ten Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 993

Citation: Hill v Compass Ten Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 993

Parties: PAUL HILL v COMPASS TEN PTY LTD

File number: NSD 15 of 2012

Judge: COWDROY J

Date of judgment: 11 September 2012

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – application for costs pursuant to s 570 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – cause of action partly based on Fair Work Act and partly based on breach of contract – whether s 570 applies to breach of contract claim – s 570 applies to entirety of proceedings

INDUSTRIAL LAW – whether proceedings instituted without cause – proceedings instituted without cause – costs awarded pursuant to s 570 Fair Work Act

Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 570
Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) s 32

Cases cited: Cavar v Nursing Australia [2012] FCA 338
Goldman Sachs JB Were Services Pty Ltd v Nikolich (2007) 163 FCR 62
Hill v Compass Ten [2012] FCA 761
Hill v Compass Ten (No 2) [2012] FCA 815
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd
(2000) 104 FCR 564
Kanan v Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union (1992) 43 IR 257
Philip Morris Inc v Adam P. Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457

Date of hearing: The matter was heard on the papers

Date of last submissions: 17 August 2012

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 14

Solicitor for the Applicant: The Applicant was unrepresented

Solicitor for the Respondent MacKellars Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 15 of 2012

BETWEEN:
PAUL HILL
Applicant

AND:
COMPASS TEN PTY LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

COWDROY J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 SEPTEMBER 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs incurred in the entirety of the proceedings in NSD 15 of 2012.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 15 of 2012

BETWEEN:
PAUL HILL
Applicant

AND:
COMPASS TEN PTY LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

COWDROY J

DATE:

11 SEPTEMBER 2012

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 3 August 2012 the Court handed down its decision in Hill v Compass Ten (No 2) [2012] FCA 815 (‘the second decision’), which dismissed Mr Hill’s claim for damages resulting from a purported breach of his contract of employment with the respondent. In orders dated 3 August 2012, the Court ordered parties to provide submissions in writing on the question of whether pursuant to s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘the Act’) Mr Hill should pay the respondent’s costs. Section 570 of the Act states:
Costs only if proceedings instituted vexatiously etc.
(1)A party to proceedings (including an appeal) in a court (including a court of a State or Territory) exercising…

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 Hill v Compass Ten 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: [2012] FCA 993
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hill v Compass Ten Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 993, the applicant, Paul Hill, sought damages for breach of contract and a number of other claims against his former employer, Compass Ten Pty Ltd. The Federal Court was required to determine whether costs should be awarded against the applicant pursuant to section 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The central issue was whether section 570 of the Act applied to the entirety of the proceedings, including the breach of contract claim, and whether the applicant's proceedings were instituted without reasonable cause.

The court found that section 570 of the Act applied to the entirety of the proceedings, including the breach of contract claim, as the court's jurisdiction to hear the matter was dependent on the existence of a claim under a federal statute. The court relied on the principle that when a court which can exercise federal jurisdiction has its jurisdiction attracted in relation to a matter, that jurisdiction extends to the resolution of the whole matter. The court also found that the applicant's claim for breach of contract had no substantial prospect of success, as he had misled his employer by attaching his son's first aid certificate and stating that it was his own certificate, which constituted a ground for summary dismissal under his contract.

The court concluded that the applicant had initiated these proceedings without reasonable cause, as he was aware that his claim for breach of contract would have been doomed to fail. As a result, the court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings. This decision demonstrates the importance of ensuring that proceedings are instituted with reasonable cause and that the court's jurisdiction is exercised appropriately.

Orders