Ianna v Uniting Resources
Case
•
[2018] FCCA 2412
•13 September 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
IANNA v Uniting Resources [2018] FCCA 2412
[2018] FCCA 2412
13 September 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Ianna v Uniting Resources*, the applicant sought an order for costs thrown away due to an adjournment of the hearing date, which was necessitated by the applicant's ill-health. The application was made to Judge Altobelli of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to an order for costs thrown away in circumstances where the adjournment was due to their own ill-health, and the substantive application was still pending.
Judge Altobelli dismissed the application for costs thrown away, finding that the applicant had not established a sufficient basis for such an order. The court reasoned that the costs incurred were a consequence of the applicant's own circumstances, and that it would be inappropriate to order the respondent to pay these costs when the ultimate outcome of the substantive proceedings remained undetermined. The court applied the general principle that costs follow the event, but that exceptions can be made where circumstances warrant, and that the applicant's own ill-health did not, in this instance, justify shifting the burden of those costs to the respondent.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to an order for costs thrown away in circumstances where the adjournment was due to their own ill-health, and the substantive application was still pending.
Judge Altobelli dismissed the application for costs thrown away, finding that the applicant had not established a sufficient basis for such an order. The court reasoned that the costs incurred were a consequence of the applicant's own circumstances, and that it would be inappropriate to order the respondent to pay these costs when the ultimate outcome of the substantive proceedings remained undetermined. The court applied the general principle that costs follow the event, but that exceptions can be made where circumstances warrant, and that the applicant's own ill-health did not, in this instance, justify shifting the burden of those costs to the respondent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
2
Hagos v Volvo Group Australia Pty Ltd
[2016] FCCA 688
Melbourne Stadiums Ltd v Sautner
[2015] FCAFC 20