Sallehpour v Frontier Software Pty Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sallehpour v Frontier Software Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 663

COSTS – action for unlawful termination under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) – action dismissed – applicant engaged in “unreasonable conduct” prior to hearing – applicant mentally disabled and unable to comprehend significance of conduct – exercise of discretion under s 170CS(1)(b) Workplace Relations Act 1996

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 170CK, s 170CS(1)(b)
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 85A(2)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43

Sallehpour v Frontier Software Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 247, referred to

Ward v Western Australia (1999) 93 FCR 305, referred to

Blagojevch v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 98 FCR 45, referred to

Zhang v The Royal Australian Chemical Institute Inc (No 2) [2004] FCA 1626, referred to

MOHAMMADALI SALLEHPOUR v FRONTIER SOFTWARE PTY LTD

V 13 OF 2003

MARSHALL J
25 MAY 2005
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 13 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMADALI SALLEHPOUR APPLICANT
AND:	FRONTIER SOFTWARE PTY LTD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 MAY 2005
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay fifty percent of the respondent’s costs of the proceeding incurred on and from 13 July 2004 until 15 March 2005, to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY		V 13 OF 2003
BETWEEN:	MOHAMMADALI SALLEHPOUR APPLICANT
AND:	FRONTIER SOFTWARE PTY LTD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	25 MAY 2005
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 15 March 2005 the Court published its reasons for judgment in Sallehpour v Frontier Software Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 247 (“the principal judgment”). In the principal judgment the Court dismissed the applicant’s application for an order that his employment with the respondent had been unlawfully terminated in breach of s 170CK of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the Act”).  These reasons for judgment should be read together with the reasons in the principal judgment.

2. In the principal judgment the Court ordered as follows:

   “1.      The application be dismissed.

   2.Costs be reserved with submissions on the question of costs to be filed by the respondent on or before 24 March 2005.

   3.In the event that the respondent does file submissions on the question of costs, the applicant is to file submissions in response by 8 April 2005.”

3. Late in the afternoon on 24 March 2005, the respondent filed its submissions on the question of costs.  Although the written document was headed “Outline of Respondent’s Submission on Costs”, given that the Court did not intend that the parties have an opportunity to orally expand on their written submissions it will treat that document as the respondent’s full submissions on costs.

4. The respondent sought costs under s 170CS(1)(b) of the Act. That provision states:

   “Subject to this section, a party to a proceeding under…