1
Fair Work Act 2009
s 789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying
Mr Joseph Salama
v
Transport for NSW t/a Sydney Trains; Mr Laurence New; Ms Amba
Francisco; Mr Charlie Keech; Ms Kirsty Sweeting
(AB2017/280)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS SYDNEY, 9 OCTOBER 2018
Application for an order to stop bullying – applicant dismissed from employment – bullying
application dismissed under s 587 of the Act – application for costs – no reasonable
prospects of success – principles in costs applications in Stop Bullying applications –
Commission’s general principles under s 611 of the Act applied – general protections
proceedings lodged in Federal Court – application to stay original proceedings dismissed –
costs sought for period from 19 December 2017 – relevant tests under s 611(2)(b) satisfied –
should have been reasonably apparent that application had no reasonable prospects of
success – application granted on a party to party basis – indemnity costs refused – orders to
be made pursuant to Commission’s Schedule of Costs in Act’s Regulations.
BACKGROUND
[1] On 21 May 2017, Mr Joseph Salama filed an application, pursuant to s 789FC of the
Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’) in which he requested the Fair Work Commission (the
‘Commission’) make an order to stop bullying (the ‘s 789FC application’ the ‘Stop Bullying
application’). The Stop Bullying application named four management persons, who Mr
Salama alleged had harassed and bullied him while he was carrying out his duties as a Union
delegate and Health and Safety Representative at Transport for NSW t/a Sydney Trains
(‘Sydney Trains’). Sydney Trains was named as the fifth respondent. Mr Salama’s substantive
position was Transport Officer and he had been employed by Sydney Trains (or its
predecessor entities) since 28 August 2013. Mr Salama alleged the harassment and bullying
included threats of disciplinary action in relation to alleged false allegations made by him.
[2018] FWC 5756
DECISION
E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2018] FWC 5756
2
[2] The matter was allocated to me on 5 June 2018, and in accordance with my usual
practice, I listed the matter for a conference on 15 June 2018 in order to explore resolution of
the application, without the need for further proceedings. Unfortunately, the matter did not
resolve at the conference, and it was subsequently listed for a three day hearing in September
2017. At that time, I also issued directions for the filing and service of evidence and outlines
of submissions.
[3] On 5 July 2017, the respondents filed an application seeking that the Commission
dismiss the Stop Bullying application, pursuant to s 587 of the Act, on the basis that the
application was made vexatiously and without reasonable cause (the ‘dismissal application’).
I listed the application for mention and subsequently issued fresh directions in relation to the
dismissal application. The September hearing dates for the substantive application were
vacated, pending an outcome in relation to the dismissal application.
[4] On 14 August 2017, Mr Salama’s employment at Sydney Trains was terminated. It is
demonstrably apparent that Mr Salama’s termination of employment related, inter alia, to a
finding by Sydney Trains that he made false bullying allegations against management
persons; namely the respondents. Mr Salama then filed an application to the Commission
seeking relief in respect to his dismissal, including reinstatement, pursuant to Part 3-1 General
Protections of the Act. Attempts at settling this matter were unsuccessful and a s 368
certificate was issued on 26 October 2017 by Hunt C. Mr Salama subsequently pressed his
General Protections application in the Federal Court of Australia (the ‘Federal Court
proceedings’), in an application in that Court, filed on 9 November 2017 (NSD1977/2017).
On 20 September 2017, Mr Salama applied to the Commission for an order staying his Stop
Bullying application, pending the outcome of the Federal Court proceedings. Mr Salama also
foreshadowed that if he is successful in the Federal Court proceedings, he would make an
application for costs against the respondents in relation to the Stop Bullying application.
[5] I convened a further mention of the dismissal application and Mr Salama’s stay
application on 5 December 2017. The next day, new directions were issued requiring the
parties to submit any further material in relation to the dismissal application (including in
respect to the effect, if any, that Mr Salama’s termination of employment had on the dismissal
application) and in relation to Mr Salama’s application for the substantive matter to be stayed,
pending an outcome of the Federal Court proceedings. I understand the Federal Court
[2018] FWC 5756
3
proceedings are listed for hearing on 13 February 2019. At the Commission hearing on 14
February 2018, Mr Salama was represented by Mr D O’Sullivan, Counsel, instructed by
Michael Vassili Barristers and Solicitors.
[6] On 11 April 2018, the Commission denied Mr Salama’s request for his Stop Bullying
application to be stayed and granted the respondents’ dismissal application, pursuant to s 587
of the Act; see: Salama v Sydney Trains and Others [2018] FWC 1845.
[7] On 26 April 2018, the respondents filed an application that Mr Salama pay the
respondents’ costs, pursuant to s 611 of the Act (the ‘costs application’). This decision
determines that application.
EVIDENCE
[8] Ms Amber Sharp, Solicitor for the respondents, filed the only witness statement in
relation to the costs application. Despite being legally represented (by the firm, Michael
Vassili Barristers & Solicitors), Mr Salama filed no witness statement, nor did he request a
hearing of the application in which Ms Sharp could be cross examined. In these
circumstances, I accept her evidence. That said, I have no reason to doubt Ms Sharp’s credit
as a witness of truth, particularly given her professional obligations to the Commission as a
legal practitioner. In any event, Ms Sharp’s evidence consisted primarily of correspondence
sent between the parties and the Commission during the course of these proceedings, which in
large part set out the factual background to the matter. Ms Sharp affirmed that she is the legal
practitioner with conduct of this matter on behalf of all of the respondents. She said that the
fifth respondent, Sydney Trains has paid the legal fees for all the respondents in relation to
this matter.
SUBMISSIONS
For the respondents
[9] Ms Sharp submitted that the respondents seek an order for costs against Mr Salama,
pursuant to s 611(2)(b) of the Act, on that basis that it should have been reasonably apparent
to him that:
(a) an application to stay the Stop Bullying application; or
[2018] FWC 5756
4
(b) to defend an application to dismiss the application,
had no reasonable prospects of success.
[10] Ms Sharp outlined the chronology of events in respect to the matter. She referred to a
letter which the respondents had sent to Mr Salama’s Solicitor on 23 August 2017 (the letter
was attached to her witness statement). The letter included the following text:
‘As you know, your client's employment was terminated effective 14 August 2017.
Even if your client was bullied at work, which is denied, there is no further "risk
that [your client] will continue to be bullied at work ...".
Accordingly, the Fair Work Commission has no jurisdiction to make an order for
the purposes of section 789FF(1)(b)(i) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act):
Shaw v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited TIA ANZ Bank; Bianca
Haines [2014] FWC 3408 at [16].
In those circumstances, the application is liable to be dismissed under section
587(1)(c) of the FW Act….
In the event that the application is not discontinued by your client, and it is
necessary for our client to file an application seeking an order for dismissal, we
are instructed to rely on this letter on the recovery of legal costs in accordance
with section 611(2)(b) of the FW Act.’ [Ms Sharp’s emphasis]
The respondents did not receive a response to this letter.
[11] Ms Sharp also referred to my earlier decision (see: [2018] FWC 1845), where I said:
‘[46] In my view, the decision in Willis is ‘on all fours’ with the factual circumstances
of this case….
[52] I unreservedly accept that there is no ‘general rule’ in the Commission’s Anti-
Bullying jurisdiction which requires a ‘strike out’ application to succeed where the
applicant is no longer at work. However, I am satisfied that the circumstances of this
case, overwhelmingly compel such an outcome.
[53] Accordingly, I order that Matter AB2017/280 be dismissed as having no
reasonable prospects of success under s 587(1)(c) of the Act and in the exercise of my
general discretion under s 587, which does not limit when the Commission may
dismiss an application. An order to this effect will be issued simultaneously with this
decision.’
[12] Turning to s 611(2)(b) of the Act, Ms Sharp referred to Mr Salama’s reliance on the
decisions of the Commission in Atkinson v Killarney Properties Pty Ltd & Palm [2015]
[2018] FWC 5756
5
FWCFB 6503 (‘Atkinson’) and Willis v Capital Radiology Pty Ltd t/a Capital Radiology; Ms
Peita Carroll; Ms Marie Gibson; Mr Dominik Kucera [2016] FWC 716 (‘Willis’). In both
Atkinson and Willis, the applicants had made applications to the Commission for orders
indefinitely staying their Stop Bullying applications, pending an outcome of separate Court
proceedings seeking reinstatement. In both cases, the applicants were unsuccessful and their s
789FC applications were dismissed on the grounds that they had no reasonable prospects of
success. Ms Sharp noted that in both decisions, the Commission had stated that there is
nothing prohibiting the applicants from commencing a new application under s 789FC of the
Act, if it became necessary to do so in future. Ms Sharp submitted that in order for Mr
Salama’s stay application to be granted, he would need to distinguish Atkinson and Willis. He
failed to do so; indeed the Commission found Willis was ‘on all fours’ with the factual
circumstances of Mr Salama’s case. Ms Sharp pointed out that Mr Salama had not identified
any decisions of the Commission in which an applicant had succeeded in seeking an indefinite
adjournment of a s 789FC proceeding.
[13] Ms Sharp noted that the 23 August 2017 letter put Mr Salama on clear notice that his
Stop Bullying application was liable to be dismissed under s 587(1)(c) of the Act; which it
was on 11 April 2018. In these circumstances, the respondents seek an order for costs from 19
December 2017 (although in the submissions Ms Sharp referred to 2018, which was
obviously a mistake), being the date the amended dismissal application was filed. She said
this was the latest date at which it should have been very clear to Mr Salama that his Stop
Bullying application would be dismissed. Ms Sharp said that these circumstances warrant a
departure from the ordinary position that parties bear their own costs in proceedings before
the Commission, and would be consistent with the Act’s Object of achieving a ‘fair go all
round’. (I note that this object is discretely found in the Commission’s unfair dismissal
jurisdiction and not elsewhere, although the exercise of the Commission’s general powers
under s 577 of the Act apply to all matters brought under the Act).
[14] Lastly, Ms Sharp submitted that due to the applicant’s wilful disregard of the known
facts and case law, indemnity costs should be awarded in this case; see: Stanley v QBE
Management Services Pty Limited [2012] FWA 10164.
For Mr Salama
[2018] FWC 5756
6
[15] I should say at the outset, it is not entirely clear whether Mr Vassili personally
prepared Mr Salama’s submissions, as they were unsigned. If I am wrong about that then the
reference to Mr Vassili in this decision should refer to the author of the submissions, although
I apprehend for professional purposes, Mr Vassili has responsibility for any communications
or submissions filed by his Firm on behalf of Mr Salama, as he had been earlier identified as
the representative commencing to act on Mr Salama’s behalf.
[16] Mr Vassili, Solicitor, split his submissions in relation to the application for costs into
two sections. Firstly, he dealt with costs incurred by the respondent from the time the
application was filed, until the date of the applicant’s dismissal; and secondly, between the
period the applicant was dismissed from his employment (14 August 2017) and the hearing of
the dismissal application and stay application (13 February 2017). I observe at this juncture,
that given the respondents only seek a costs order from 19 December 2017, it is not apparent
to me why Mr Vassili made submissions in respect to costs incurred prior to 19 December
2017. In any event, I recount the essence of those submissions in brief.
[17] Turning firstly to the costs incurred by the respondents between when the Stop
Bullying application was filed (21 May 2017) and the applicant’s dismissal (14 August 2018),
Mr Vassili said paragraph [49] of my earlier decision ‘best’ describes the reasons for the
earlier decision:
‘I hasten to add that I am in no position to make findings about whether the applicant’s
bullying allegations are valid or not. No case has been run; let alone any evidence
properly tested. I am simply observing that it seems to me that the prejudice in this
case rests primarily on the named respondents who will have to wait for many months,
without being given an opportunity to defend the bullying allegations against them,
(which I note they strenuously deny).’
[18] Mr Vassili submitted that these observations demonstrate the Commission did not find
that the Stop Bullying application had ‘no reasonable prospects of success’ from the outset.
Rather, the proceedings were rendered ‘nugatory’ by the effect of the applicant’s dismissal on
14 August 2017. The prejudice to the named respondents were then taken into account by the
Commission. In respect to Willis and Atkinson, those cases involved Stop Bullying
applications which were similarly rendered nugatory, under s 789FF(b)(ii) of the Act, when
the applicants were dismissed by their employers. Mr Vassili said that as the applicants had
been dismissed, the Commission then conducted a balancing exercise in respect to prejudice
[2018] FWC 5756
7
suffered by the respective parties in considering whether to dismiss the application. The
Commission had employed that kind of reasoning in respect to the dismissal application in
this matter. On that basis, Mr Vassili submitted that there be no finding made which would
enliven an order of costs between the date the Stop Bullying application was filed to the date
of Mr Salama’s dismissal.
[19] Mr Vassili then turned his attention to the costs incurred by the respondents between
the date of Mr Salama’s dismissal (14 August 2017) and the hearing (13 February 2018). In
somewhat confusing syntax, Mr Vassili submitted that the Commission ought to consider
whether the applicant had been ‘unreasonable to not agree to the dismissal by consent once
termination was made’; in effect, whether he had acted unreasonably when he continued his
Stop Bullying application, once he had been dismissed. Mr Vassili said that it was not
unreasonable to continue the Stop Bullying application given the following circumstances;
which I set out below:
(a) It is agreed amongst all parties that there is ‘no general rule’ in strike out applications
for Stop Bullying jurisdiction;
(b) The jurisdictional argument was only enlivened upon the dismissal of the applicant, of
which follows the proceedings would have been determined had the dismissal not
occurred;
(c) There would necessarily be a subjective assessment of the prejudice caused to the
parties;
(d) The applicant sought to stay the proceedings to deal solely with the issue of costs of
the Stop Bullying claim after proper ventilation and outcome of Federal Court
proceedings dealing with an asserted unlawful dismissal arising from the Stop
Bullying claim itself;
(e) If the Honourable Commission was to accede to award costs of the stay application,
there would potentially be a substantial injustice to the applicant should he be
successful in establishing in the Federal Court:
i. that there was a bona fide basis for the Stop Bullying application; and
ii. there has been an unlawful termination;
(f) What the applicant was merely seeking to achieve in the application for a stay of these
proceedings, was to avoid that injustice as to conduct where an employer can elect out
of a Stop Bullying suit by termination.
[20] Further, Mr Vassili submitted that should the Commission find in favour of the
respondents in respect to the costs application, the decision should be reserved pending the
outcome of the Federal Court proceedings, in order to avoid the potential injustice referred to
above.
[2018] FWC 5756
8
[21] Mr Vassili put that there are unequal financial and bargaining positions between Mr
Salama and Sydney Trains. The applicant is in an impecunious position as a result of his
dismissal. Mr Vassili also submitted that an award of costs in this situation would ‘embolden
the bullying of the applicant. An order for costs against the applicant could have the broader
consequence of encouraging workplace bullying.
[22] In reply, Ms Sharp responded to three specific submissions Mr Vassili made (although
the respondents expressly rejected all his other submissions). Ms Sharp said the submissions
were misconceived when Mr Vassili put that:
(a) the purpose of Mr Salama’s stay application was to deal solely with the costs
application (against the respondents) once the Federal Court proceedings had
concluded;
(b) an order for costs would be a substantial injustice for Mr Salama should he be
successful in the Federal Court proceedings; and
(c) awarding costs against Mr Salama would ‘embolden the bullying of the applicant’.
[23] Ms Sharp noted that the Federal Court proceedings are in relation to an alleged
contravention of s 340 of the Act. Those proceedings centre on Mr Salama’s allegation that he
was unlawfully terminated because he exercised workplace rights, including inter alia, by
filing the Stop Bullying application. Ms Sharp contended that even if he is successful in the
Federal Court proceedings, that outcome cannot be relevant to the Stop Bullying application
and the respondents’ application for a costs order. The Federal Court proceedings will focus
on the reason/s for termination and determine whether it was unlawful. The Court will not
make findings as to the merits of the Stop Bullying application.
CONSIDERATION
[24] Given the relatively recent enactment and unique character of the Stop Bullying
jurisdiction of the Commission under Part 6-4B of the Act, it is unsurprising that there are few
decisions on costs applications, arising under this Part of the Commission’s jurisdiction; see:
Application by HWS [2014] FWC 4476 per Hampton C; Application by Hill [2014] FWC
5588 per Hatcher VP; Application by Woods [2015] FWC 6620 per Bull DP; King v Dixen
and others [2018] FWC 2433 per Bissett C. In all but one of these decisions there was no
[2018] FWC 5756
9
order made for costs. I shall refer to that decision of VP Hatcher later. Unlike the
Commission’s unfair dismissal jurisdiction, Part 3-2, which has additional discrete costs
provisions (s 400A), there is no specific or additional provisions under Part 6-4B dealing with
costs applications in Stop Bullying matters. It follows that any such application will fall for
determination under the Act’s general costs provisions at s 611 and the principles which have
been considered and established by the Commission under that section. Section 611 provides
as follows:
‘611 Costs
(1) A person must bear the person’s own costs in relation to a matter before the
FWC.
(2) However, the FWC may order a person (the first person) to bear some or all of
the costs of another person in relation to an application to the FWC if:
(a) the FWC is satisfied that the first person made the application, or the
first person responded to the application, vexatiously or without reasonable
cause; or
(b) the FWC is satisfied that it should have been reasonably apparent to the
first person that the first person’s application, or the first person’s response to
the application, had no reasonable prospect of success.
Note: The FWC can also order costs under sections 376, 400A, 401 and 780.
(3) A person to whom an order for costs applies must not contravene a term of the
order.
Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4 1).’
[25] In Church v Eastern Health t/as Eastern Health Great Health and Wellbeing [2014]
FWCFB 810 a Full Bench of the Commission considered the operation of s 611 and
summarised the principles to be applied in costs applications. At paras [26]-[30] the Full
Bench said:
‘[26] Section 611 sets out a general rule - that a person must bear their own costs in
relation to a matter before the Commission (s.611(1)) - and then provides an exception
to that general rule in certain limited circumstances. The Explanatory Memorandum
confirms this interpretation of the section, it is in the following terms:
2353. Subclause 611(1) provides that generally a person must bear their own
costs in relation to a matter before FWA.
[2018] FWC 5756
10
2354. However, subclause 611(2) provides an exception to this general rule in
certain limited circumstances. FWA may order a person to bear some or all of
the costs of another person where FWA is satisfied that the person made an
application vexatiously or without reasonable cause or the application or
response to an application had no reasonable prospects of success.
2355. A note following subclause (2) alerts the reader that FWA also has the
power to order costs against lawyers and paid agents under clauses 376, 401
and 780 which deal with termination and unfair dismissal matters.
2356. Subclause 611(3) provides that a person to whom a costs order applies
must not contravene a term of the order.
[27] In the context of s.570 and its legislative antecedents courts have observed that an
applicant who has the benefit of the protection of a provision such as s.570(1), (ie the
general rule that parties bear their own costs), will only rarely be ordered to pay
costs and that the power should be exercised with caution and only in a clear case. In
our view a similarly cautious approach is to be taken to the exercise of the
Commissions powers in s.611 of the FW Act.
[28] We now turn to the exceptions to the general rule expressed in s.611(1) and the
meaning of the expression ‘vexatiously or without reasonable cause. (endnotes
removed)
…
[30] We now turn to the expression ‘without reasonable cause’. A party cannot be said
to have made an application ‘without reasonable cause’, within the meaning of
s.611(2)(a), simply because his or her argument proves unsuccessful. The test is not
whether the application might have been successful, but whether the application
should not have been made. In Kanan v Australian Postal and Telecommunications
Union., Wilcox J put it this way:
“It seems to me that one way of testing whether a proceeding is instituted
‘without reasonable cause’ is to ask whether, upon the facts apparent to the
applicant at the time of instituting the proceeding, there was no substantial
prospect of success. If success depends upon the resolution in the applicant’s
favour of one or more arguable points of law, it is inappropriate to stigmatise
the proceeding as being ‘without reasonable cause’. But where, on the
applicant’s own version of the facts, it is clear that the proceeding must fail, it
may properly be said that the proceeding lacks a reasonable cause.”’
[26] The primary contention of the respondents in this matter is that following the
applicant’s dismissal, it should have been reasonably apparent to him that his Stop Bullying
application had no reasonable prospects of success. That being so, I refer to a Full Bench
decision which further developed the principles to be applied under s 611(s)(b). In Keep v
Performance Automobiles Pty Ltd [2015] FWCFB 1956, the Full Bench said at paras [18]-
[19]:
[2018] FWC 5756
11
‘[18] As to s.611(2)(b), the FWC may make a costs order against a person if satisfied
that ‘it should have been reasonably apparent’ to that person that their application had
‘no reasonable prospect of success’. The expression ‘should have been reasonably
apparent’ in s.611(2)(b) imports an objective test, directed to a belief formed on an
objective basis as opposed to the applicant’s subjective belief.
[19] There is Full Bench authority for the proposition that the Commission should
exercise caution before arriving at the conclusion that an application had ‘no
reasonable prospects of success’. In Deane v Paper Australia Pty Ltd11 a Full Bench
made the following observation about this expression in the context of enlivening a
power to award costs under s.170CJ(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996;
“unless upon the facts apparent to the applicant at the time of instituting the
[application], the proceeding in question was manifestly untenable or
groundless, the relevant requirement in s.170CJ(1) is not fulfilled and the
discretion to make an order for costs is not available”.’ (endnotes removed)
[27] Added to these authorities is the weight of the High Court’s judgement in Spencer v
The Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118 in which consideration was given to the
meaning of the phrase, ‘no reasonable prospect’ in the context of s 31A of the Federal Court
of Australia Act 1976. The High Court majority (Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bull JJ) said:
‘In many cases where a plaintiff has no reasonable prospect of prosecuting a
proceeding, the proceeding could be described (with or without the addition of
intensifying epithets like "clearly", "manifestly" or "obviously") as "frivolous",
"untenable", "groundless" or "faulty". But none of those expressions (alone or in
combination) should be understood as providing a sufficient chart of the metes and
bounds of the power given by s 31A. Nor can the content of the word "reasonable", in
the phrase "no reasonable prospect", be sufficiently, let alone completely, illuminated
by drawing some contrast with what would be a "frivolous", "untenable", "groundless"
or "faulty" claim.
Rather, full weight must be given to the expression as a whole. The Federal Court may
exercise power under s 31A if, and only if, satisfied that there is "no reasonable
prospect" of success. Of course, it may readily be accepted that the power to dismiss
an action summarily is not to be exercised lightly. But the elucidation of what amounts
to "no reasonable prospect" can best proceed in the same way as content has been
given, through a succession of decided cases, to other generally expressed statutory
phrases, such as the phrase "just and equitable" when it is used to identify a ground for
winding up a company. At this point in the development of the understanding of the
expression and its application, it is sufficient, but important, to emphasise that the
evident legislative purpose revealed by the text of the provision will be defeated if its
application is read as confined to cases of a kind which fell within earlier, different,
procedural regimes.’
[28] In applying these general principles it is necessary for the Commission to objectively
consider whether any of the grounds in s 611(2) apply to the circumstances of this 789FC
application. Whether such an application has no reasonable prospects of success is a finding
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FWCFB/2015/1956.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(%222015%20FWCFB%201956%22)#P126_13076
[2018] FWC 5756
12
which should only be reached with extreme caution and where the application is manifestly
untenable or groundless. A finding of unreasonable prospects of success will need to be
established before the Commission exercises its discretion to order some, or all of the other
parties’ costs.
[29] I would add that in the Commission’s Stop Bullying jurisdiction there is no general
rule in strike-out applications and specifically no automatic conclusion that a strike-out
application must succeed if a Stop Bullying application is not discontinued shortly after an
applicant’s dismissal. Indeed, there is no general rule that an Stop Bullying application must
be dismissed if the applicant’s employment is terminated by dismissal or resignation,
although the majority of such cases have observed the obvious, as I did in this application
decision at para [53]:
‘Accordingly, I order that Matter AB2017/280 be dismissed as having no reasonable
prospects of success under s 587(1)(c) of the Act and in the exercise of my general
discretion under s 587, which does not limit when the Commission may dismiss an
application. An order to this effect will be issued simultaneously with this decision.’
[30] In Hill v L E Stewart [2014] FWC 4666 (‘Hill v Stewart Investments’), Vice President
Hatcher put it this way in the context of firstly, Mr Hill’s failure to prosecute his Stop
Bullying application and secondly, his application having no reasonable prospects of success.
At para [24] His Honour said:
‘[24] The second reason is that I do not consider that Mr Hill’s application has any
reasonable prospects of success. Under s.789FF(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, it is a prerequisite
for the making of an order to stop bullying that the Commission be satisfied that
“there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or
group”. On the facts as stated in Mr Hill’s application, it is clear that the working
relationship between himself and L E Stewart Investments Pty Ltd (the precise nature
of which was in dispute) ended on 11 March 2014 and has not resumed since that
time. There is nothing in the application or in the document which Mr Hill filed on 4
June 2014 pursuant to the directions which would provide any basis for the
Commission being satisfied that there is any risk that Mr Hill would continue to be
bullied at work by the respondents. Mr Hill sought to characterise certain conduct
allegedly engaged in since 11 March 2014 by Mr Stewart as bullying, but on no view
could that conduct constitute bullying at work, since as stated no working relationship
of any type involving the respondents has existed since that date. The respondents
emphatically denied the various allegations of bullying made against them by Mr Hill,
and the allegations were never put to the test because Mr Hill did not attend the
hearing, but even if Mr Hill had been able to make out those allegations, he could not
have succeeded in obtaining an order to stop bullying because the s.789FF(1)(b)(ii)
requirement could not have been satisfied.’
[2018] FWC 5756
13
[31] Relevantly, I note that although the respondents in Hill v L E Stewart Investments P/L
and Others [2014] FWC 5588 were unrepresented, a subsequent application for costs
associated with travel expenses incurred by them to attend a conference convened by the
Commission, was successful with the Vice President ordering an amount of $420 for such
expenses.
[32] In determining this costs application, I have had regard to the relevant principles set
out above in the context of the specific circumstances of this case:
1. Mr Salama was dismissed by Sydney Trains on 14 August 2017. Sydney Trains has a
comprehensive, lengthy and detailed process which it undertakes when considering
whether to dismiss an employee, particularly for misconduct.
2. Shortly after his dismissal, Mr Salama filed a General Protections application
involving dismissal under Part 3-1 of the Act. I accept he alleges, inter alia, that he
had been dismissed because of the filing of his application for a Stop Bullying order.
This application requires findings under s 340 of the Act that Mr Salama had a
workplace right and suffered adverse action when he exercised that right, or he was
dismissed for a prohibited reason. Various remedies, including reinstatement, are
available if these preconditions are established. Civil penalties can also be ordered. In
my view, the application before the Federal Court is distinct and separate to the
application brought by Mr Salama under the Commission’s Stop Bullying jurisdiction.
Obviously, without pre-judging the conclusions of the Federal Court, what would
seem clear is that the right to seek stop bullying orders is sufficiently distinct to a
finding under the General Protections provisions, that the applicant had been
dismissed because of a prohibited reason; namely, the filing of his Stop Bullying
application. It is unlikely the Federal Court would (or could) make findings of
bullying as alleged, that is the merits of the application; rather, if the applicant is
ultimately successful on this basis, the Federal Court’s finding would only go to
whether the filing of his Stop Bullying application, was the reason for his dismissal.
Even if he was reinstated, any jurisdictional precondition to lodging another Stop
Bullying application would arise from that point, not from some historic conduct. In
other words, he would be perfectly entitled to lodge a fresh s 789FC application,
assuming the jurisdictional foundations are established.
[2018] FWC 5756
14
3. At the relevant time, the applicant was legally represented. I note here that the
respondents do not seek costs for any time to the filing of their amended dismissal
application on 19 December 2017. I do not understand why Mr Vassili addressed costs
prior to that time, when it was patently clear no application was made for that period.
4. By letter from the respondents on 23 August 2017, the applicant was on notice that a
failure to discontinue his Stop Bullying application in light of his dismissal, might
result in this application for costs. Not only did he (or his representative) not respond
to this letter, he filed another application under the General Protections provisions of
the Act. He then sought to have his Stop Bullying application stayed indefinitely, and
if he was successful in his General Protections application, he would seek a costs
order against the respondents.
5. As I mentioned in the dismissal decision, the case here is ‘on all fours’ with Willis. I
would add that the circumstances here are also similar to those in Atkinson where a
Full Bench of the Commission said at paras [22]-[25]:
‘[22] The fact that, at the time the Commissioner dismissed Mr Atkinson’s
s.789FC applications, Mr Atkinson had an unfinalised general protections
court application in respect of the termination of his employment on 3 June
2015 and the fact that a court has the power to make a reinstatement order in
respect of a general protections court application, do not preclude the
Commissioner’s conclusion. Those facts do not mean that at the time the
Commissioner dismissed Mr Atkinson’s s.789FC applications there was “a risk
that [Mr Atkinson] will continue to be bullied at work” by the individual or
group against whom he made the s.789FC applications.
[23] As a consequence of concluding that one of the pre-requisites for making
an order to stop bullying in respect of Mr Atkinson’s s.789FC applications was
not satisfied, the Commissioner determined that Mr Atkinson’s s.789FC
applications had no reasonable prospects of success. There is no error in that
determination. The determination is not contrary to authority, including that of
the High Court of Australia in Spencer v The Commonwealth.
[24] Having determined that Mr Atkinson’s s.789FC applications had no
reasonable prospects of success the Commissioner then exercised his
discretion under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act to dismiss Mr Atkinson’s s.789FC
applications. It is evident from the Commissioner’s decisions that, in
exercising his discretion to dismiss Mr Atkinson’s s.789FC applications, the
Commissioner was conscious of the discretionary considerations raised by Mr
Atkinson as to why his s.789FC applications should not be dismissed,
including his submissions for relief in respect of his s.789FC applications
being constituted by something other than an order. However, the
Commissioner was also conscious that Mr Atkinson had made a general
protections court application and of the potential consequences of that on Mr
[2018] FWC 5756
15
Atkinson being able to make another s.789FC application. In the
circumstances, it was reasonably open to the Commissioner to exercise his
discretion under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act as he did.
[25] Accordingly, we do not accept that the Commissioner erred in finding Mr
Atkinson’s s.789FC applications had no reasonable prospects of success. Nor
do we accept the Commissioner concluded he had to dismiss Mr Atkinson’s
s.789FC applications once he found they had no reasonable prospects of
success. Rather the Commissioner dismissed Mr Atkinson’s s.789FC
applications in the exercise of his discretion under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.’
While these cases do not deal with costs applications, they certainly deal with similar
circumstances – a dismissed employee, a not yet concluded General Protections Court
application and an applicant’s request to stay or adjourn their s 789FC application.
[33] In my opinion, Mr Salama would need to distinguish the circumstances in Willis and
Atkinson, which he was unable to do. With the knowledge of these decisions, it should have
been reasonably apparent to him, and his legal advisors, that his application to have his s
789FC matter remain on foot, had no reasonable prospects of success. I find accordingly,
pursuant to s 611(2)(b) of the Act.
[34] It is necessary to say a few things about Mr Vassili’s submissions, which included the
use of confusing words or expressions, out of context, such as to make it difficult to
understand what was intended.
[35] Firstly, it was said that the Commission did not find Mr Salama’s Stop Bullying
application had no reasonable prospects of success from the outset; rather the proceedings
were rendered nugatory by the effect his applicant’s dismissal. The first part of this
submission is correct; but that is not the relevant period of costs sought by Sydney Trains.
Secondly, unless I am mistaken, I apprehend Mr Vassili’s submission seeks to make a
distinction between the effect of the applicant’s dismissal and the dismissal resulting in the
proceedings being nugatory in the sense of the Commission being still able to make findings
as to prejudice to Mr Salama. (Ms Sharp seemed to think the submission had left out the
word ‘not’ so as to read the dismissal did not make the proceedings nugatory). The meaning
of nugatory as defined in the Macquarie Dictionary is ‘of no force or effect; futile; vain;
(Latin: worthless).’ My decision of 11 April 2018, had the consequence of concluding the
[2018] FWC 5756
16
matter, save as to costs. In other words, the s 789FC application had ‘no force’ and pressing it
was ‘futile’.
[36] Secondly, it was submitted that even if the Commission found in favour of the
respondents’ costs application, I should ‘reserve’ my decision, until the outcome of the
Federal Court proceedings is known. In effect, this is the same outcome Mr Salama seeks
from dismissing the costs application. Presumably, he believes that if the Federal Court
proceedings are successful, I would either not publish this decision, or even if I did, the
respondents would not, or could not, press for any orders made in their favour. To state the
obvious, to reserve a decision, is to adjourn an application at the end of a case after evidence
and submissions, in order for the Commission to consider the outcome and prepare a decision
for publication, as soon as it is drafted and put into a final form. Moreover, Mr Vassili does
not understand what reserving a decision means. It most certainly is not preparing a decision
and then not publishing it, because it might be of no force or effect as a result of a decision of
another Court at some indeterminate time in the future.
[37] Thirdly, it was put that Mr Salama would be prejudiced if he was ordered to pay costs
because he was impecunious. Apart from the general principle that impecuniosity is not a
determinative factor in costs applications in this Commission, or any Court, there was no
evidence of the applicant’s financial circumstances; there was nothing but a bald submission
from Mr Vassili that the applicant was impecunious. This would be an insufficient basis to
make such a finding, even if I was inclined to do so.
[38] Fourthly, it was submitted that the grant of the respondents’ costs application would
‘embolden the bullying of the applicant’ and/or ‘encourage workplace bullying’. There is not
a skerrick of evidence supporting such wild and sensational allegations. I will accord Mr
Vassili the benefit of the doubt and put this nonsensical submission down to ‘rhetorical
flourish’ and nothing more; others might conclude the allegations are objectionable and
insulting. It must be stressed that any party is entitled to pursue its rights under the Act. To
describe a party’s success in pursuing their rights in such sensational terms, is unacceptable. It
ill behoves a party in properly initiated proceedings in the Commission, to make such
assertions, particularly if they arise from the advice of a legal practitioner.
Power to award indemnity costs
[2018] FWC 5756
17
Indemnity Costs
[39] There is no doubt that the Commission has the power to award costs on an indemnity
basis. This power was discussed in Stanley v QBE Management Services P/L [2012] FWA
10164. In that case, Jones C (as she then was) helpfully set out a number of authorities
dealing with indemnity costs in proceedings under the Workplace Relations Act and the
Courts generally. At para [24]-[27], the Commissioner usefully set out some relevant
authorities on this point, starting with an excerpt from Goffett v Recruitment National Pty Ltd
[2009] AIRCFB 626:
‘[49] In Australian Transport Insurance Pty. Ltd. v Graeme Phillips Road
Transport Insurance Pty. Ltd Woodward J dealing with a costs application in
the Federal Court of Australia isolated the following principle in relation to
indemnity costs:
“Courts in both the United Kingdom and Australia have long accepted
that solicitor and client costs can properly be awarded in appropriate
cases where ‘there is some special or unusual feature in the case to
justify the court exercising its discretion in that way’ (Preston v
Preston (1982) 1 All ER 41 at 58). It is sometimes said that such costs
can be awarded where charges of fraud have been made and not
sustained; but in all the cases I have considered, there has been some
further factor which has influenced the exercise of the court’s
discretion - for example, the allegations of fraud have been made
knowing them to be false, or they have been irrelevant to the issues
between the parties: see Andrews v Barnes (1888) 39 Ch D
133; Forester v Read (1870) 6 LR Ch App Cases 40; Christie v Christie
(1873) 8 Ch App Cases 499; Degmam Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Wright (No
2) (1983) 2 NSWLR 354.”
[50] In Oshlack v Richmond River Council, Gaudron and Gummow JJ said:
“It may be true in a general sense that costs orders are not made to
punish an unsuccessful party. However, in the particular circumstance
of a case involving some relevant delinquency on the part of the
unsuccessful party, an order is made not for party and party costs but
for costs on a ‘solicitor and client’ basis or on an indemnity basis. The
result is more fully or adequately to compensate the successful party to
the disadvantage of what otherwise would have been the position of the
unsuccessful party in the absence of such delinquency on its part.”
[25] Justice Sheppard said in Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd(Colgate
Palmolive) at 233:
[2018] FWC 5756
18
"... it is useful to note some of the circumstances which have been thought to
warrant the exercise of the discretion [to award indemnity costs]. I instance
the making of allegations of fraud knowing them to be false and the making of
irrelevant allegations of fraud (both referred to by Woodward J in Fountain
and also by Gummow J in Thors v Weekes (1989) 92 ALR 131 at 152 evidence
of particular misconduct that causes loss of time to the court and to other
parties (French J in Tetijo); the fact that the proceedings were commenced or
continued for some ulterior motive (Davies J in Ragata) or in wilful disregard
of known facts or clearly established law (Woodward J in Fountain and
French J in J-Corp); the making of allegations which ought never to have been
made or the undue prolongation of a case by groundless contentions (Davies J
in Ragata); an imprudent refusal of an offer to compromise (eg Messiter v
Hutchinson (1987) 10 NSWLR 525; Maitland Hospital v Fisher (No 2) (1992)
27 NSWLR 721 at 724(Court of Appeal); Crisp v Kent (SC(NSW)(CA), 27 Sept
1993, unreported) and an award of costs on an indemnity basis against a
contemnor (eg Megarry V-C in EMI Records)...."
[26] In J-Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Builders Labourers Federated Union of Workers,
Western Australian Branch and Anor (No 2), Justice French said:
"... It is sufficient, in my opinion, to enliven the discretion to award such costs
that, for whatever reason, a party persists in what should on proper
consideration be seen to be a hopeless case. The case against the BTA was
paper thin. ..."
[27] In Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Mohamad Saleh and Ors (Commonwealth
Bank decision), indemnity costs were awarded against the defendants, following a
finding by the Court that they had sought to defraud the Bank of around $7 million. In
the decision on costs, Justice Einstein said:
"[5] There is no doubt but that the Bank is entitled to an indemnity costs order
against Mr Edge. Not only was he one of the fraudulent conspirators but
significantly he sought to rely in the proceedings on documents which were
found to be fabricated. He persisted throughout the whole of the hearing in
denying the bank's allegations in respect of his fraud: knowing those
allegations to be true. This conduct par excellence constituted relevant
delinquency. The case for a indemnity costs against him is plainly a fortiori.
[6] Likewise the case for ordering indemnity costs against Mr Qureshi is
clearly made out. He also relied upon invoices and time sheets which have
been found to have been fabricated and were at the very heart of his defence.
He also persisted throughout the whole of the hearing in denying the bank's
allegations in respect of his fraud: knowing those allegations to be true.
Additionally he persisted in frustrating the Bank's attempts to obtain access to
documents required to be produced by the litigious process: see the judgement
in respect of the ultimate obtaining of access to the deep memory of the
[2018] FWC 5756
19
computer and the circumstances in which only during the hearing when in the
witness box [initially as part of the voire dire to ascertain the enquiries which
he had made in relation to the existence of material documents] did he come
forward with the important information concerning how the money which he
had received had been expended. This was delinquent conduct. The case for a
indemnity costs against him is also a fortiori.
[7] The cases for indemnity costs orders against Mr Mohamad Saleh and Mr
Hassanien Saleh are also quite clear. Although they were not any longer
represented during the hearing, their pleadings denying the fraud were before
the Court and the Bank was required to prove the fraud. Their denial of the
fraudulent allegations which they knew to be correctly made and the vast
expense which the Bank was required to undertake to prove its case against
them clearly mandates an indemnity costs order being made against each of
them."
[40] In Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 2) [2012] FCA 407, Buchanan J
identified one of the foundations for an order of indemnity costs may be on the basis of the
findings made in the earlier judgment that the applicant’s case was, in all relevant aspects,
based on a falsehood. His Honour said at para [5]:
‘Each of these foundations appears to me to provide a sufficient basis for the
award of indemnity costs from the dates specified. As to the first basis upon
which indemnity costs have been sought, it is well-established that indemnity
costs are not awarded as a punishment against an unsuccessful litigant.
However, they will be awarded in appropriate cases to protect a respondent
from the financial burden of proceedings which were unjustified and should
not have been commenced. Each of the proceedings commenced by the
applicant falls, in my view, into this category. In the present case, the lack of
merit in each of the proceedings is so marked, and the claim for protection by
the respondents against unwarranted financial burden is so well-founded, that
there is a sufficient justification for the award of indemnity costs with respect
to the whole of each of the proceedings, subject to an issue to which I will
return concerning the basis on which the Supreme Court proceedings were
transferred to this Court. It is not necessary for me to repeat here the findings
which were made in the earlier judgment. The proceedings were, in each case,
based on falsehood and were without any legal substance. The respondents are
entitled to claim that they should be relieved, so far as an order for costs would
achieve this, from the financial burden of defending them.’
[41] It is trite to observe that if costs applications on a ‘party to party basis’ are to be
treated by the Commission with caution, given the objects of the Act and the relevant
principles, a fortiori are costs applications sought on an indemnity basis. Such orders are rare
and unusual. Having considered the circumstances in this case, I do not consider the necessary
high threshold has been reached, such as to order costs on an indemnity basis.
[2018] FWC 5756
20
[42] However, as I am satisfied that it should have been reasonably apparent to Mr Salama
that his s 789FC application had no reasonable prospects of success, at the least by the time of
the respondents’ amended dismissal application of 19 December 2017, I am prepared to make
an order for costs on a ‘party to party’ basis against Mr Salama for the period after that date.
[43] In that respect, I direct the respondents, to file within 14 days, a Schedule of Costs
according to Schedule 3.1 of the Fair Work Regulations. Formal orders will follow as a
consequence.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr M Vassili Solicitor (Michael Vassili Barristers & Solicitors) for the applicant
Ms A Sharp Solicitor (Bartier Perry) for the respondents
Final written submissions:
For the applicant 14 June 2018
For the respondent 21 June 2018
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
PR700345
ORK WORK COMMISSION FAIR THE SEAL OF
