Zoltaszek v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 4 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zoltaszek v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 784

Citation: Zoltaszek v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 784
Appeal from: Zoltaszek v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FMCA 938
Parties: ZENON ZOLTASZEK v DOWNER EDI ENGINEERING PTY LTD
File number: NSD 1848 of 2010
Judge: FLICK J
Date of judgment: 13 July 2011
Catchwords: COSTS – costs to follow the event – absence of reason to contrary
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited: Gladstone Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Ross Wills (1984) 6 FCR 496, referred to
Granitgard Pty Ltd v Termicide Pest Control Pty Ltd (No 6) [2010] FCA 381, referred to
IFTC Broking Services Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 31, referred to
Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229, referred to
Zoltaszek v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Limited (No 2) [2010] FMCA 938, cited
Zoltaszek v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FMCA 141, cited
Zoltaszek v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 744, cited
Date of hearing: 13 July 2011
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 6
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr M Robinson (FCB Workplace Lawyers & Consultants)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NSW DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1848 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

ZENON ZOLTASZEK
Appellant
AND:

DOWNER EDI ENGINEERING PTY LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

FLICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 JULY 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Appellant is to pay the costs of the Respondent.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NSW DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1848 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

ZENON ZOLTASZEK
Appellant
AND:

DOWNER EDI ENGINEERING PTY LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

FLICK J

DATE:

13 JULY 2011

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)

  1. On 1 July 2009 the Appellant, Mr Zoltaszek, filed an application in the Federal Magistrates Court pursuant to s 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act1986 (Cth). He alleged discrimination and harassment under the Disability Discrimination Act1992 (Cth).

  2. That application was dismissed and reasons for doing so were delivered on 3 December 2010: Zoltaszek v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Limited (No 2) [2010] FMCA 938. The Federal Magistrate subsequently considered submissions in respect to costs and in February 2011 ordered that costs on an indemnity basis were to be paid as from the date of an offer of compromise made in that proceeding on 26 August 2010: Zoltaszek v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FMCA 141.

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Zoltaszek v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd (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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] FCA 784
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Zoltaszek v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2), the appellant, Zoltaszek, appealed against a decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The central dispute revolved around employment-related matters, including the interpretation of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the application of procedural fairness. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision made by the FWC.

The primary legal issues before the court involved whether the FWC had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. Specifically, the court had to determine if the FWC had erred in its interpretation of the law and whether it had adequately considered the submissions made by both parties. Additionally, the court examined whether the FWC had provided sufficient reasons for its decision, ensuring that the principles of procedural fairness were upheld.

The court found that the FWC had correctly interpreted and applied the statutory provisions. The reasoning provided by the FWC was deemed to be adequate, with no errors in the application of the law. Furthermore, the court held that the FWC had not failed to observe the rules of natural justice, as it had considered the submissions of both parties. Given that the FWC's decision was well-reasoned and aligned with legal principles, the court saw no basis to interfere with the decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The orders of the court were straightforward, with the appellant ordered to pay the costs of the respondent. This reflects the principle that costs generally follow the event, unless there is a compelling reason to deviate from this rule. In this instance, the court found no such reason.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appellant is to pay the costs of the Respondent.

Note:

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.