Alexander Teakle v Civil Independence Industries Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 875

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.365—General protections Alexander Teakle v Civil Independence Industries Pty Ltd (C2025/13346) COMMISSIONER SIMPSON BRISBANE, 7 MAY 2026 Application for costs under s.611 – s.365 application [1] Civil Independence Industries Pty Ltd (the Costs Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) seeking an order for costs against Mr Alexander Teakle (the Costs Respondent/Mr Teakle) pursuant to s.611 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). [2] The application is made in the context of an application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal made under s.365 of the Act by Mr Teakle on 22 December 2025 against the Costs Applicant. [3] The Costs Applicant was represented by Ms Jodie Griffin of Wonderley & Hall Solicitors in the substantive case, and in this costs matter. The Costs Respondent appeared on his own behalf in the substantive matter and in the costs matter, however failed to appear at the jurisdictional hearing. Procedural background between the parties [4] The Costs Respondent’s s.365 application was filed on 22 December 2025. [5] The Costs Applicant raised the jurisdictional objection that Mr Teakle was not an employee and therefore, was not terminated on the employer’s initiative within the meaning of s.386(1) of the Act. [6] At 10:00 AM on 9 March 2026, a hearing was held to determine the jurisdictional issue only. Mr Teakle did not attend the hearing. Several attempts were made by my chambers to contact the Applicant by telephone and email, but these attempts were unsuccessful. [7] I determined to dismiss the application on the basis that the jurisdictional object raised had not been contested. [8] At 12:21 PM on 9 March 2026, the Costs Applicant filed the application for costs. [2026] FWC 875 DECISION -- 1 of 5 -- [2026] FWC 875 2 [9] At 4:11 PM on 9 March 2026, I directed the Costs Respondent to file a written response to the application for an order that he pay the Costs Applicant’s legal costs by 5:00 PM Monday, 16 March 2026. The Costs Respondent failed to file a response. Relevant Legislation [10] The application for costs against Mr Teakle was made pursuant to s.611 of the Act which stipulates 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).” Submissions [11] The Costs Applicant sought an order for the Costs Respondent to bear some or all of the costs on basis that the s.365 application was made without reasonable cause, within the meaning of s.611(2)(a) of the Act. [12] The Costs Applicant submitted the s.365 application was made without reasonable cause because Mr Teakle was not employed by the Costs Applicant at any relevant time. Mr Teakle was engaged by a separate labour hire provider, AustCorp Consulting Pty Ltd, and provided services to the Costs Applicant on a temporary, as-needed basis only. [13] The Costs Applicant said that this was clearly evidenced in their Form F8A response. -- 2 of 5 -- [2026] FWC 875 3 [14] The Costs Applicant submitted that Mr Teakle engaged in unreasonable acts or omissions in connection to the conduct of this matter, within the meaning of s.611(2) of the Act causing it to incur unnecessary costs on preparing for and attending the jurisdictional hearing. [15] The Costs Applicant specifically noted Mr Teakle’s failure to attend the listed jurisdictional hearing, despite proper notification, and Mr Teakle’s prior non-compliance with directions issued by the Commission. [16] The Costs Applicant further submitted that Mr Teakle failed to respond to or acknowledge a settlement offer it made on a without prejudice basis on 26 February 2026, citing that this offer was in accordance with the principles in Calderbank v Calderbank.1 [17] The Costs Applicant stated that the offer proposed that Mr Teakle withdraw his s.365 application by 4 March 2026, with each party bearing its own legal costs and that the offer remained open until 5:00 PM 5 March 2026. [18] The Costs Applicant submits that Mr Teakle’s failure to respond to or acknowledge this offer constitutes an unreasonable act or omission under s.611(2)(b) of the Act, causing it to incur further unnecessary costs in continuing preparation for and attending the jurisdictional hearing. [19] The Costs Applicant requested that the Commission consider and determine the application for costs in chambers, on the papers. [20] The Costs Respondent did not file a response to the application for an order for costs. Consideration [21] The Form F8 application contains the bare minimum of information. At the time the Costs Applicant filed its Form F8A response to the application on 29 January 2026, it was self- represented and set out in the response that it did not employ the Costs Respondent, and he was employed by a labour hire company. [22] On 4 February 2026 the Commission issued directions that the matter was listed for a jurisdictional hearing on 9 March 2026 by video and the Costs Applicant was directed to file its material by 12 February 2026 and the Costs Respondent by 26 February 2026. [23] The directions included that any party seeking permission to be represented to file and serve a written submission supporting their application. Any party opposing representation for the other party was directed to file a submission stating their reasons for objecting by 19 February 2026. [24] The Costs Respondent was directed to file submissions and a statement in reply by 26 February 2026. [25] On the same day and in response to the Commissions directions the Costs Respondent sent an email to chambers simply stating “So what else do I need to do?” -- 3 of 5 -- [2026] FWC 875 4 [26] On the same day email correspondence was sent from chambers to the Costs Respondent copying in the Costs Applicant stating as follows: “Dear Mr Teakle, As per my previous email, please refer to the attachment above for directions for the filing of material prior to the jurisdictional hearing date.” [27] On 12 February the Costs Applicant filed written submissions and a Form F53 seeking leave to be represented under s.596. The submissions set out that the Costs Respondent was employed by AustCorp Consulting Pty Ltd (Austcorp), a separate labour hire entity on a casual on-hire basis. The Submission attached a copy of the contractor agreement between the Costs Respondent and Austcorp, and other documents supporting its objection that the Costs Respondent was never an employee of the Costs Applicant. [28] The Costs Respondent’s material was due on 26 February 2026 and nothing was filed. The Commission sent an email to the Costs Respondent on 27 February 2026 following up on the directions, and a further email to the Applicant on 2 March 2026 requesting an explanation for his failure to file. On 4 March 2026 the Costs Respondent sent an email to the General Protections Team, and not to chambers which simply stated as follows: “What’s the latest update thanks Alexander teakle”. [29] On 4 March 2026 chambers sent email correspondence to the Costs Respondent referring to the earlier correspondence from chambers to the Costs Respondent and asking for a response to the earlier correspondence by 12:00 PM Thursday, 5 March 2026. [30] The Costs Respondent responded by email to chambers stating, “I don’t understand this.” [31] I determined that the hearing would proceed as previously confirmed in the Notice of Listing dated 4 February 2026 to hear and determine the Respondent’s objection. [32] The Applicant failed to appear at the hearing, the objection was upheld, and the application was dismissed. [33] The general rule under s.611(1) is that a person must bear their own costs in relation to a matter before the Commission. [34] It seems reasonably apparent from the limited communications received by the Commission from the Costs Respondent, as set out above that he had a limited understanding of the Commission’s jurisdiction, or the procedures to be followed in an application before the Commission. Having said that, on the material filed by the Costs Applicant, it should have been reasonably apparent to the Costs Respondent, that his case had no reasonable prospects as it seems objectively clear he was not employed by the Costs Applicant. It appears the Costs Respondent did not understand that was the case. However, I am satisfied from the material he should have. -- 4 of 5 -- [2026] FWC 875 5 [35] I have no basis to conclude that the Costs Respondent was motivated to act vexatiously. It could be said that as he did not have reasonable cause as at the time of instituting the proceedings, there was no substantial prospects of success. I am satisfied that grounds for the awarding of costs exist in this case. [36] Ultimately the awarding of costs is a discretionary matter. In this case it is likely the Costs Respondent had limited understanding of the jurisdiction and did not understand that he was not a direct employee of the Costs Applicant and was in fact an employee of a labour hire company. The Costs Respondent’s failure to respond to the Costs Applicant’s offer to settle, and failure to appear at the jurisdictional hearing are unfortunate, and as have been submitted for the Costs Applicant. further support its claim for costs. [37] The Costs Applicant made the simple point that it never employed the Costs Respondent in its initial response to the application before its engaged legal representation. The submission filed on Costs Applicant’s behalf by its lawyer expanded on the point and provide some documentation to support of the factual position. This same information could easily have been provided without engaging a lawyer. [38] The Costs Applicant decided to engage legal representation. However, its case was a very simple one that it could have made itself. Whilst it would be open to award costs in this case against the Costs Respondent, having weighed the facts and circumstances I do not intend to exercise my discretion to award costs against the Costs Respondent, as this is not a case that would justify departing from the general approach as set out in s.611(1) despite failings on the part of the Costs Respondent in the way he conducted the matter. Conclusion [39] The Application for costs is dismissed. COMMISSIONER Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR797707> 1 [1975] Fam 93. -- 5 of 5 --