Mitford Investments (WA) Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Adaszko

Mitford Investments (WA) Pty Ltd (Trustee) sought enforcement of a Fair Work Commission order, requiring Rick Adaszko to pay them $39,817.75 for legal costs incurred in relation to an unfair dismissal application, an application for permission to appeal, and a costs application. The application was made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and was filed in the Perth Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant sought enforcement of the Commission’s order dated 4 March 2022, which was made pursuant to sections 611 and 402 of the Act. The Commission’s order required the respondent to pay the applicant the specified sum for the aforementioned legal costs. The applicant also filed an affidavit in support of the application, which included the Commission’s decision and the costs order. The matter was listed for a first court date, but the respondent did not appear or respond to the application.

The Court had to decide whether to enforce the Commission's order and whether to make a further costs order in favor of the applicant. The Court considered the provisions of sections 611 and 539 of the Act, which provide for the imposition of costs and classify section 611 as a civil remedy provision, respectively. The Court also considered section 566, which confers jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Division 2) in relation to any civil matter arising under the Act, and section 545(1), which grants the Court broad remedial powers if it is satisfied that a person has contravened a civil remedy provision. The Court noted that section 611(3) of the Act mandates that any person to whom an order for costs applies must not contravene a term of the order.

In this case, the Court determined that it was appropriate to enforce the Commission's order, as the respondent had not complied with it. However, the Court exercised its discretion under section 570 of the Act to not make a further costs order in favor of the applicant, taking into account the respondent's financial difficulties and his partial engagement with the proceedings before the Commission. The Court made orders as outlined in the application, effectively enforcing the Commission's order.