FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
John Holland Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
[2012] FCA 224
Citation: John Holland Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2012] FCA 224 Parties: JOHN HOLLAND PTY LTD (ACN 004 282 268) v CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION, THE COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA, AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION, AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION and AUSTRALIAN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONER (Intervener) File number(s): QUD 63 of 2009 Judge: GREENWOOD J Date of judgment: 14 March 2012 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – consideration of the issue of costs in the proceeding Legislation: Workplace Relations Act (1996) (Cth), s 824 Date of last submissions: 13 March 2012 Place: Brisbane Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 8 Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Moody Solicitor for the Applicant: Herbert Geer Lawyers Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Respondents: Karne Reidy Herd, Solicitors
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION
QUD 63 of 2009
BETWEEN: JOHN HOLLAND PTY LTD (ACN 004 282 268)
Applicant
AND: CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
First RespondentTHE COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Second RespondentAUTOMOTIVE, FOOD METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION
Third RespondentAUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION
Fourth RespondentAUSTRALIAN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONER
Intervener
JUDGE:
GREENWOOD J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 MARCH 2012
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.There be no order as to costs.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION
QUD 63 of 2009
BETWEEN: JOHN HOLLAND PTY LTD (ACN 004 282 268)
Applicant
AND: CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
First RespondentTHE COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Second RespondentAUTOMOTIVE, FOOD METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION
Third RespondentAUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION
Fourth RespondentAUSTRALIAN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONER
Fifth Respondent
JUDGE:
GREENWOOD J
DATE:
14 MARCH 2012
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
There is one outstanding matter to be addressed in the final resolution of all issues arising out of the above proceedings.
In delivering judgment in relation to the substantive issues in the proceeding an order was made that the costs of and incidental to the further consideration of matters remitted to the primary judge pursuant to orders of the Court made on 16 July 2010 be reserved and the parties lodge written submissions in relation to costs within three weeks.
Submissions were lodged on behalf of the applicant.
Submissions were not received by the Court from the respondents.
The Court contacted the respondents to determine whether they wished to lodge any submissions. They do not propose to do so.
Section 824 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) provides that a party to a proceeding, including an appeal, in a matter arising under the Workplace Relations Act must not be ordered to pay costs incurred by any other party to the proceedings unless the proceeding was instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause.
I accept that the proceeding were not instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause and nor was there any unreasonable act or omission which would warrant an order for costs.
It follows that there will be no order for costs.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Greenwood. Associate:
Dated: 14 March 2012
- AGLC
- John Holland Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2012] FCA 224
- Case
- [2012] FCA 224
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to address included the assessment and allocation of costs in the proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the costs incurred by the applicant should be borne by the respondent, and to what extent. This involved examining the nature of the claims, the conduct of the parties during the litigation, and the principles governing the award of costs in such cases.
The court, in its decision, carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles. It found that given the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties, it was appropriate to make no order as to costs. The court's reasoning was based on the idea of fairness and the principle that costs should not be awarded in a manner that would be disproportionate or unjust. The court concluded that the circumstances did not warrant an order for costs to be paid by one party to the other.
The final orders made by the court were that there be no order as to costs, in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. This decision reflects the court's careful consideration of the legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, ensuring a balanced and fair outcome.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. 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.