FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tamu v World Vision Australia (No 2) [2021] FCA 565
Appeal from: Tamu v World Vision Australia [2020] FCCA 3465 File numbers: QUD 372 of 2020
QUD 35 of 2021Judgment of: RANGIAH J Date of judgment: 28 May 2021 Catchwords: COSTS – Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43 –– application for costs in matter arising under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether applicant instituted proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause – whether applicant’s unreasonable act or omission caused the respondent to incur costs – party-and-party costs awarded to respondent Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 570
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N and 43
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 26.12
Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Diploma Group Limited (No 3) [2017] FCA 891
Balanggarra Aboriginal Corporation v State of Western Australia [2018] FCA 1538
Baker v Patrick Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) (2014) 145 ALD 548
Davaria v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Limited [2021] FCA 450
Fair Work Ombudsman v Grouped Property Services Pty Ltd(No 3) [2017] FCA 810
Fair Work Ombudsman v Valuair Ltd (No 3) [2014] FCA 1182
Nicolai v Indochina Medical Co Pty Ltd (No 2) (2013) 300 ALR 755
Read v Stevens Publishing Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 459
Ryan v Primesafe (2015) 323 ALR 107
Sabapathy v Jetstar Airways (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 68
Saxena v PPF Asset Management Ltd [2011] FCA 395
Shea v EnergyAustralia Services Pty Ltd(No 2) [2015] FCAFC 14
Tamu v World Vision Australia [2021] FCA 333
Travaglini v Raccuia [2012] FCA 620
Trustee for The MTGI Trust v Johnston (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 190
UCX Ltd v Australian Communications and Media Authority [2019] FCA 1345
Division: Fair Work Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations Number of paragraphs: 35 Date of last submissions: 26 April 2021 (Respondent) Date of hearing: Decided on the papers Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M McKechnie Solicitor for the Respondent: Kingston Reid ORDERS
QUD 372 of 2020
QUD 35 of 2021BETWEEN: LUKE TAMU
Applicant
AND: WORLD VISION AUSTRALIA
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
RANGIAH J
DATE OF ORDER:
28 MAY 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the applications in proceeding number QUD 372 of 2020 and proceeding number QUD 35 of 2021 on a party-and-party basis.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The issues in dispute between the parties
[11]
Limits on the Court’s jurisdiction to award costs
[13]
Section 570(2)(a) FW Act: Did the applicant institute the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause?
[18]
Section 570(2)(b) FW Act: Did the applicant’s unreasonable act or omission cause the respondent to incur costs?
[22]
Is the respondent entitled to an…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Tamu v World Vision Australia (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] FCA 565
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's actions in instituting the proceedings were vexatious or without reasonable cause. Additionally, the court had to determine if the applicant's unreasonable act or omission caused the respondent to incur costs, thereby warranting an award of costs under section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The court examined the merits of the applicant's case, the conduct of the applicant during the proceedings, and the overall circumstances surrounding the litigation.
The court found that the applicant's actions in instituting the proceedings were vexatious or without reasonable cause, as the applicant's claims were not well-founded and lacked merit. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant's unreasonable act or omission caused the respondent to incur costs, as the respondent was compelled to defend the proceedings and incur legal expenses. As a result, the court awarded party-and-party costs to the respondent for the applications in proceeding number QUD 372 of 2020 and proceeding number QUD 35 of 2021.
The final orders of the court required the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the applications in the specified proceedings on a party-and-party basis, as outlined in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that legal proceedings are not instituted without reasonable cause or in a vexatious manner, as such actions can result in significant financial consequences for the applicant.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the applications in proceeding number QUD 372 of 2020 and proceeding number QUD 35 of 2021 on a party-and-party basis.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.