Monash University v Murthi (Costs) - [2024] FCA 783

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Monash University v Murthi (Costs) [2024] FCA 783

File number: VID 467 of 2024

Judgment of: WHEELAHAN J

Date of judgment: 17 July 2024

Catchwords: COSTS — s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) – where the successful first respondent sought an order for costs – where s 570(1) of the Act applied – whether an exception under s 570(2)(b) or (c) was enlivened – the unsuccessful applicant had not engaged in an unreasonable act – the unsuccessful applicant had not unreasonably refused to participate in a matter before the Fair Work Commission – no order as to costs made.

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 569, 569A, 570, 570(1), 570(2), 570(2)(b), 570(2)(c)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M

Cases cited:
Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 879; 162 FCR 392

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 1; 204 CLR 559

Australian Workers’ Union v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCAFC 23; 232 FCR 428

Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34; 264 CLR 123

Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) [2010] HCA 1; 239 CLR 531

Monash University v Murthi [2024] FCA 663

Ryan v Primesafe [2015] FCA 8; 323 ALR 107

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1968] 2 QB 862

Division: Fair Work Division

Registry: Victoria

National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations

Number of paragraphs: 13

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Felman KC with Mr M Garozzo

Solicitors for the Applicant: Clayton Utz

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms E Brumby

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Maurice Blackburn

Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent filed a submitting notice

ORDERS

VID 467 of 2024

BETWEEN:
MONASH UNIVERSITY

Applicant

AND:
DR PADMA MURTHI

First Respondent

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

WHEELAHAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 JULY 2024

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.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WHEELAHAN J:
Introduction

On 21 June 2024, I dismissed Monash University’s application for a declaration that the Fair Work Commission did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the first respondent, Dr Padma Murthi, breached the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2018, or otherwise to determine the merits or outcome of such an allegation, in the context of arbitrating a dispute about the application of the Monash University Enterprise Agreement (Academic and Professional Staff) 2019 (the Agreement): Monash University v Murthi [2024] FCA 663.
After I delivered judgment, I heard the parties on the question of costs. Counsel for Dr Murthi indicated that her client wished to consider making an application for costs on the basis that one of the conditions in s 570(2)…

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 Monash University v Murthi (Costs) 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: [2024] FCA 783
Decision Date: 17 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Monash University contested a claim made by Dr Murthi in the Fair Work Commission, which was subsequently brought to the Federal Court. Dr Murthi, the respondent, sought an order for costs following the dismissal of his application. The central legal issue before the court was whether any of the exceptions under section 570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 applied to permit an order for costs against the successful party. The court had to determine whether Monash University had engaged in an unreasonable act or unreasonably refused to participate in the matter before the Fair Work Commission.

The court analysed whether Monash University had engaged in an unreasonable act or unreasonably refused to participate in the Fair Work Commission's process. Dr Murthi argued that Monash University had unreasonably refused to participate in the Commission's process by seeking a declaration from the Court that it would incur costs if forced to continue in the Commission's process. However, the court found that Monash University had actively participated in all aspects of the proceeding before the Commission, including making a jurisdictional objection and participating in a directions hearing. The court concluded that merely seeking a court order to clarify its position in relation to the issues before the Commission did not constitute a refusal to participate in the Commission's process.

The court found that Monash University had not engaged in an unreasonable act nor unreasonably refused to participate in a matter before the Fair Work Commission. Consequently, the court did not make an order as to costs. The court's decision was based on the active participation of Monash University in the Commission's process and the lack of any unreasonable refusal to participate.

In conclusion, the court made no order as to costs. The court found that Monash University had not engaged in any unreasonable act or unreasonably refused to participate in the Fair Work Commission's process, and therefore, the exceptions under section 570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 did not apply. The decision highlights the importance of active participation in administrative processes and the limitations on awarding costs under the Fair Work Act.

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

Nor am I persuaded by Dr Murthi’s submissions on s 570(2)(c). At every step of the way, the University has participated in the proceeding before the Commission. The University made a jurisdictional objection early in the course of the Commission proceeding, and subsequently filed submissions and other material in support of that objection. The University then took part in a directions hearing, after which the Commission made directions programming the dispute towards a final hearing on both jurisdiction and merits. By these very steps, the University took a full and active part in all aspects of the proceeding before the Commission. Nor was there any suggestion that the University would not continue to do so. Indeed, the very premise of seeking a declaration in this Court was that, without this relief, the University would incur costs arising out of its participation in the proceeding before the Commission. Simply seeking a court order to vindicate the University’s position in relation to the issues that were properly before the Commission is no refusal to participate in the Commission’s process. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the University refused to participate in a matter before the Commission, let alone that it did so unreasonably, as s 570(2)(c) requires.Conclusion There will be no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number:	VID 467 of 2024
Judgment of:	WHEELAHAN J
Date of judgment:	17 July 2024
Catchwords:	COSTS — s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) – where the successful first respondent sought an order for costs – where s 570(1) of the Act applied – whether an exception under s 570(2)(b) or (c) was enlivened – the unsuccessful applicant had not engaged in an unreasonable act – the unsuccessful applicant had not unreasonably refused to participate in a matter before the Fair Work Commission – no order as to costs made.
Legislation:	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 569, 569A, 570, 570(1), 570(2), 570(2)(b), 570(2)(c) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M
Cases cited:	Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 879; 162 FCR 392 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 1; 204 CLR 559 Australian Workers’ Union v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCAFC 23; 232 FCR 428 Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34; 264 CLR 123 Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) [2010] HCA 1; 239 CLR 531 Monash University v Murthi [2024] FCA 663 Ryan v Primesafe [2015] FCA 8; 323 ALR 107 Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1968] 2 QB 862
Division:	Fair Work Division
Registry:	Victoria
National Practice Area:	Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs:	13
Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M Felman KC with Mr M Garozzo
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Clayton Utz
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Ms E Brumby
Solicitors for the First Respondent:	Maurice Blackburn
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The second respondent filed a submitting notice

ORDER MADE BY:	WHEELAHAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 JULY 2024