Mr Robert Swan v Innovative Hair Loss Solutions

[2010] FWA 6505

[2010] FWA 6505

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

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

Mr Robert Swan
v
Innovative Hair Loss Solutions
(U2010/7911)

COMMISSIONER LEWIN MELBOURNE, 23 AUGUST 2010

Application for security for costs - consent to proceed to hearing without determination.

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Innovative Hair Loss Solutions (IHLS) for an Order for security for payment of costs pursuant to s.404 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was lodged in Fair Work Australia on 17 August 2010. The application was listed for Hearing by video link between Melbourne and Perth on 25 August 2010.

[2] IHLS sought security for payment of costs for expenses in relation to the travel and accommodation costs for certain witnesses. The details of the witnesses subject to the application are set out below:

• “Travel & Accommodation - Perth to Melbourne - Applicant representative (approx $1500)

• Travel & Accommodation - Accountant to refute allegations of increase in performance per applicant’s complaint and POS reports (approx $15000)*

• Travel & Time - Current employees located in Melbourne x 2 including current Team leader to testify her own findings from the applicant’s files/clients. Travel & Time - abused staff member Melbourne (approx $1500)

• Travel & Accommodation - Managing Director normally located in Perth - Blackmail and other malicious approaches, past conduct and management of the applicant prior to March 2010 (Approx $1500)

• Any and all costs for other witnesses who will be requested to appear pursuant to summons including: past clients and staff to testify to the applicants malicious telephone calls to studios and individuals evidencing the lack of merit to his claim and that the applicant only wishes to damage IHLS in any way he is ale, requesting witnesses fabricate grounds for class and other actions against the respondent. Client testimony to unauthorised transactions constructed by the applicant and the dishonest manner in which they were reported.

The respondent respectfully requests security for costs to be granted in an amount of $5000.”

[3] On 23 August 2010 I conferred with the parties to this application to inform the parties that the Hearing may be conducted by video link between Melbourne and Perth if the parties consent to such an arrangement.

[4] Neither party were aware that the conduct of the Hearing could proceed via video link. I explained to the parties that in the event that they consent to the Hearing of the application by video link, the grounds of the application for security would no longer be relevant, and the matter could proceed directly to Hearing.

[5] The applicant consented to this course of action. Ms McClunie for IHLS did so as well and withdrew the application for security for costs accordingly.

[6] An Order by consent that the application be heard and determined by video link will issue.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR500905>