DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Koichi Yokohata
v
Lidco Oregon Australia Pty Ltd ABN: 65 167 858 442
(U2015/4706)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 8 FEBRUARY 2017

Unfair dismissal claims - application for costs - application dismissed.

[1] This Decision is made in respect to an application for costs made pursuant to ss. 611 and 400A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The costs application was initially made on 21 August 2015, by lawyers acting for Koichi Yokohata (the applicant).

[2] The matter was listed for proceedings on 13 October 2015 and there was no appearance by the respondent. The application was stood over to allow the applicant’s representative to prepare and file an amended application and assemble its material for the application to be heard and determined in the Fair Work Commission (the Commission).

[3] On 6 January 2017, a Form F54 – Notice of representative ceasing to act was filed in the Commission by the lawyers acting for the applicant. On 24 January 2017, the Commission issued correspondence to the applicant at his last known address, requiring him to make contact with the Commission and advise as to how he may wish to proceed with this application. This correspondence also advised the applicant that if the Commission did not receive any communication from him within 14 days, the matter may be dismissed for want of prosecution.

[4] There has been no response from applicant and therefore pursuant to s.587 of the Act, the application for costs is dismissed for want of prosecution.

[5] An Order [PR590085] dismissing the matter will be issued concurrently with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Koichi Yokohata brought an action against Lidco Oregon Australia Pty Ltd seeking relief in relation to an unfair dismissal claim. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Colvin. The central issue before the court was whether Lidco Oregon Australia Pty Ltd was required to pay legal costs associated with the unsuccessful application to set aside a consent order that dismissed Yokohata’s unfair dismissal claim.

The court had to determine whether Yokohata was entitled to costs as a result of the unsuccessful application to set aside the consent order. The Federal Circuit Court considered the relevant legislative provisions and case law concerning costs in such circumstances, particularly focusing on the application of section 61D of the Fair Work Act 2009. Justice Colvin found that Yokohata was not entitled to costs for the unsuccessful application, as the court found that the application to set aside the consent order was not frivolous or vexatious. The court reasoned that Yokohata had not demonstrated that the application was brought in bad faith or without reasonable prospects of success.

Consequently, the court dismissed Yokohata’s application for costs. The Federal Circuit Court concluded that the application to set aside the consent order was not without merit and therefore did not warrant an order for costs against Lidco Oregon Australia Pty Ltd.

Koichi Yokohata v Lidco Oregon Australia Pty Ltd ABN: 65 167 858 442

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established