Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (No 5)
Case
•
[2021] FCA 1645
•23 December 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (No 5) [2021] FCA 1645
[2021] FCA 1645
23 December 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Limited and Qube Logistics (Rail) Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, the applicants sought compensation and interest for unlawful industrial action and the respondents, the Union, sought to defend the claims. The dispute was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The central legal issues were whether pre-judgment interest should be awarded, and if so, at what rate, and whether an adverse costs order should be made against the Union for not accepting offers of compromise.
Regarding the award of pre-judgment interest, the Court found that interest should be awarded under section 547 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). However, due to the desultory approach taken by the applicants in pursuing the case, the Court decided to award interest at 75% of the amount claimed. The Court reasoned that the applicants' lack of urgency and proactive approach contributed to the prolonged duration of the case, which should be reflected in the interest award.
On the issue of costs, the Court considered the principles governing adverse costs orders and the context in which the offers of compromise were made. The Court found that the Union's conduct in not accepting the offers was not unreasonable given the circumstances, including the stage of the proceedings and the prospects of success at the time the offers were made. Therefore, the Court decided not to make an adverse costs order against the Union.
The Court made several orders, including judgment for the applicants for compensation and interest, and pecuniary penalties against the Union and its officers. However, no order was made as to costs. The respondents were required to pay the pecuniary penalties to the applicants within 28 days of the date of the order.
Regarding the award of pre-judgment interest, the Court found that interest should be awarded under section 547 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). However, due to the desultory approach taken by the applicants in pursuing the case, the Court decided to award interest at 75% of the amount claimed. The Court reasoned that the applicants' lack of urgency and proactive approach contributed to the prolonged duration of the case, which should be reflected in the interest award.
On the issue of costs, the Court considered the principles governing adverse costs orders and the context in which the offers of compromise were made. The Court found that the Union's conduct in not accepting the offers was not unreasonable given the circumstances, including the stage of the proceedings and the prospects of success at the time the offers were made. Therefore, the Court decided not to make an adverse costs order against the Union.
The Court made several orders, including judgment for the applicants for compensation and interest, and pecuniary penalties against the Union and its officers. However, no order was made as to costs. The respondents were required to pay the pecuniary penalties to the applicants within 28 days of the date of the order.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Limitation Periods
-
Pre-judgment Interest
-
Costs
-
Unconscionable Conduct
-
Adverse Possession
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Colton v Dhelkaya Health (Costs) [2025] FCA 1153
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Ree Honey v Fizzics Education Pty Ltd
[2023] FedCFamC2G 319
McAlister v Yara Australia Pty Ltd
[2022] FedCFamC2G 174
Colton v Dhelkaya Health (Costs)
[2025] FCA 1153
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
0
Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (No 4)
[2021] FCA 1481
WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene
[2018] FCAFC 131