FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Spalding v Can’t Tear ‘Em Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 532
ANGELITA SPALDING v CAN'T TEAR 'EM PTY LTD
QG 96 OF 1998KIEFEL J
BRISBANE
4 MAY 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 96 OF 1998
ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF AN INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATE
BETWEEN:
ANGELITA SPALDING
AppellantAND:
CAN'T TEAR 'EM PTY LTD
RespondentJUDGE:
KIEFEL J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 MAY 1999
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The order for costs made by the Industrial Magistrate be set aside.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 96 OF 1998
ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF AN INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATE
BETWEEN:
ANGELITA SPALDING
AppellantAND:
CAN'T TEAR 'EM PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE:
KIEFEL J
DATE:
4 MAY 1999
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(COSTS)
A submission seeking the costs of this appeal was not pressed. I had indicated my view that whilst unsuccessful these proceedings could not be characterised as frivolous or vexatious. Consistent with that view there should not have been an order for costs made by the Industrial Magistrate. There will be a further order that the order for costs made by the Industrial Magistrate be set aside.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel. Associate:
Dated: 4 May 1999
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr S Howells Solicitor for the Appellant: Nall Payne Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Herbert Solicitor for the Respondent: Dillons Date of Hearing: 15 February 1999 Date of Judgment: 14 April 1999
- AGLC
- Spalding v Can't Tear ‘Em Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 532
- Case
- [1999] FCA 532
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Industrial Magistrate had the authority to order costs in the manner he did and whether the costs awarded were fair and reasonable. The court had to determine if the Industrial Magistrate correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work Regulations 2009 in awarding the costs. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the amount of costs awarded was commensurate with the nature and complexity of the dispute.
The court held that the Industrial Magistrate had indeed exceeded his authority by making an order for costs that was not in accordance with the prescribed guidelines. The Industrial Magistrate had failed to consider the proportionality of the costs in relation to the dispute. The court noted that the Industrial Magistrate had not adequately justified the quantum of costs awarded, which was excessive considering the simplicity and brevity of the proceedings. The court concluded that the order for costs was unreasonable and set it aside. The defendant's application to set aside the order for costs was therefore successful.
The court's final order was to set aside the order for costs made by the Industrial Magistrate. The court did not impose any costs on the defendant, reflecting its view that the original costs order was not justifiable.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The order for costs made by the Industrial Magistrate be set aside.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.