Byrne Ford Pty Ltd v Stone [1995] QIRC 60 (1995) 148 QGIG 817

816 QUEENSLAND GOVE RNM ENT IND US TR I AL GAZE TT E [24 Ma rch, 1995 24 M an.: h, 1995 J 14)9, l DOC QUEENSLAND GOVERNM ENT I ND US TR IAL GAZETTE 8 17 llllllll#ll##llllll# ll #llll##IIIIIIH##IIIIH/l# IIIIH llllllll#IIHk/lllllllll/1#/l###II### Ol ' El-1\SI ,\ ·o I Dl ·s fRIAI. RU.A 11 0 :-.s COM~ 11S SION /11d1111r ial R11/11tio11s .1ct I 990 , I06 and , 300 - application for costs s. 295 - apphc.itiun for rcin,1atc111cn1 Byme Ford P I} Ltd. A I) Paul tone f \ u 8 8.!Jof/99./J CO'vl MISS IO, F.R BE Clll Y 15 \1arch 1995 Co~t~ ~c inMat..:men t - Compens:111on - Withdrawal of applicauon - ObJl!Cllon - l· mo lous ()r \l!'Catiou ~ - fennina1ion or resignation <. on~lt\Jcu, c dismissal Ernpk1~ er/emplo~ ce rela11 o nsh1p Ma gl\lrates Coun Sca le Applica1mn granted Cos1~ of $ 750.00 a"a rd.:d. 1-1 395 l I)()(' -- 1 of 2 -- 818 QU EENS LAND GOV ERNMENT INDUSTRI AL GAZETTE [24 March, 1995 OEClSION An ap plicati,in that costs be awarded again st Mr r. Stone has been m ade hy Byrne Fo rd Ply Ltd., lhe respondent i n a mat te r c om:c rn i ng an app lication by Mr Stone for reinstatem ent in cmplo)111ent. "lh c cawly~1 for the applic at io11 fo r costs " as the app lication b: Mr St\>llC !t,r the wi thdrawal of his rci n,tat.emen l appli cation. h is ap propri ate to consider the sequence of eve nts ka ding to tile \\'i th drawal o f th e ap rl ication. Su bse qu en t to the ,evcranc.:: of the cmp loyment relationship Mr Stone fi l ed an arp li ca ti on see king rein statement or compensat ion on 8 AU!?U St I 99 4. h is not clear. from the i ssue s discussed before nw. w he ther Mr Stone· s ernplo) 111c Il\ \\'<IS te r minated hy the ('ompan~ or whether he res ig ned . .·'\ con fe ren ce " ·as held on 6 0<.: Lobcr I 994 when it appears that certain ofle rs r ega rd ing re-est ab lishing th e cm plo) mcnt relati on sh ip were made. It the n appears that Mr Stone's in it ial attitude was to " "a lk away" from th e whole matter and that at! itudc was con v eyed th rough his r ep resentati ve 10 th e Compan) . I lowevcr. M r Stone ap paren tI~ sough t i nformat ion from t he Commission as to what op ti ons wen: avai l ab le to him under the Act an d sub scq utcn t ly d ec ided 10 cn<lcavou r lo seek compcns;.iti on as available un de r th e Act al that time rather then pu r sue. "ha t he ap 1>arent ly co nsiden:d to be ,m unten ab le em ployment rel ationshi p. ' fo this en d he directed his rcpr e,c ntar.i vc to ill e an amend ed Jp p li cat inn fo r com pe nsa tion only and to ap proach th e Company fo r a r espo nse. In tbe cv~ nt of a ncgati \'l, r esponse he in$trnctcd that a dale of heari ng I->~ sought. I Ii :; reasoning for adopti ng that co urse i~ unknown an d appa rent ly un nec essar y as his or ig. inal applica tion :,;oug hl ci th~r re in :-.Lc1lc m t.:nt or co mp~·nsilt io ri. No scu km cn 1 was l(H1hwming. ·1he am en d .;d appl icati on 11 a, l ilc<.I 011 12 Ouo hc r 1994 an <l the niatt~r " ·en 1 In call o,·er o n 21 (ktohcr I 994 whcr.; i t wa s set fo r hcaring on 6 lk ccm her 199 -1. Howc \'CI'. on 2 -1 !ktohe r 1994 M r Stottc i n~trun cd ius represe ntative to withdr.n,, from 1h c pn1 cccd ings altogether. Thi ~ in,t rw.:lion w as com't') ed ln the r e~pon<lcnt on 29 Oct0bt:r 1994 and a frmna l request to withdraw th e ap plication was made to th e Industri al Registrar on the sum c da te . On 4 No,-cmbcr I 994 an Objection to the application to w i th<l ra,, " ·as fikd by the n: spo ndcnt. The rc~ pnndcnt furt ha sought that the ap plication be dismi.; sc<l by the Commi ss i on with ,u 1 ,111ard of costs in favo ur of the respondent. !'\,1 el'idcncc was c,1lkd hy cithcr pa r ty ,,hich rn ight ~s;; i st me in tk tcm1in i 11g the matter. I am Id! th cn w ilh sta tements from the bar ta ble to rcl\' on . On the one h and. ''vf, Prior. fo ~ lhc app li cant. sta te, th at thl' h:n n111au on of her clicm '"" a "nu t eve n con stnrct il e dismi ssa l but ..:s~cntial!y dismis sal si m plic i tcr on the basis thm the w n,·crsati on had bc2,un with 'It's ti m<.: for u~ to pa rt comp:.tn)·· m 1< 0rds to tbm cffc c1 ". l l.0 11 cvcr, i i \\\Hi ld alsl, app ~Hr th at at s0me stage in the earlier con fr rcnu: p roceedings i t was all cgcd that the tcn ninati on was ac tu al!) a consir uc 1i ,-c di ~m issal by the cmph>) c-r . On the 01ha hand. Mr Livi ngs to ne. for 13yme Ford l'ty . I t<l .. st~lcs i hat the Company rece i ve d a letter of resignati on and denied that any "p r ess ure" w as pu t on t he app i icant to r es ign . I le ;il; o in fo n11ed me that. during the con fe rence pro cess before lhe Conunission. an offer wa5 made by the Corn pan:- to re -.::mploy ,,r rein state th e ap p li can t. but i n a diffe rent yard "In a,·oi<l cmba na ss 1rn:nt by e,·erybody" . In th e .ihscncc of an y evi den ce an d cross-cxm11inmion ol' sud , ma te.rial. I am unable 10 come 1(1 any conc l us inn \\ hcther th e app li cation wa s frivolous or vexatious as dealt wit h in ~- 30 0 of th .: Act S. 300 st ates:- ·'If i t considers an application under sec tion 295 (Orders only on app li cati on) is fnvolo us or vcxati,iu s. the costs the Commissi on ma y order aga i ns t t.h.: applicant inclu de wsts n l' representati on hy coun se l. solici tor or age nt. ll'hcthcr or n,ll the Commission has cc ni fied under sec tion I 06 (Costs/." . A dct~rmi nalion as to whether an app li cation for reinst atem en t is fri,nlnus or vexatious would nee d to rely on a " ·i de r bo dy nf inlb nn at i on tlrn n thm prnv idcd during !h.:sc pro c.:ci.l i ng.s and nrnte rial "h i ch i s m uch mo re reli ab le than conll i cting a~scrti on , from the bar H1 ble. The cn pacity of the Commi ssi on to award cost, is 11 01 lim ited to s. 300. Th~rc is a general power tO award costs pr ovi de d in s. I 06 . Tradi ti ona lh· !he Commiss io n has careful!) guarded this discretion and has bee n reluctam tn i ss ue an or de r for costs under this , ~ct ion .:x~ept i n c1b ll(> rm ,il c ir cumst anc e~ (/Juuon ,. Samin i Rigby & (im.1 · 12 7 ()GIG 2 Ledlie C .. an<l 0oldmon i· Oaw (i e11<'J'o l AuJ trulia 1'1,i . l,td 143 ()GI G 197 Hougoure C) . On ap peal in Gold man v Dala Ge neral Au stralia Pty. Ltd .. l fo I lonour Mackenzie .I.. !'resident of the Industrial Cour t. referred to thi s long st an d ing. ph i ios0phy and commented t ha t:-- . . the n: is a di ~cr,'t ion to lhc c, ercisc ,,nd such di,cre1inn ca n n(> l be le tte r ed i n ,uch a "ay th at. i n prac.ucal terms . Ji.; ni .:s th~ charactG a~ a di ,crct i on . Whcr<: circumstance, tha t can properly b;; describ ed as abnormal c an be i dcnlil icd i n a ca,c and i t wou ld cause seri o us inj ustice if costs were not awarded it 11·ould not do v i1> lencc tO 1hcs e general principles if an award or cos l s is giwn. II should ho1< ·cvcr tic ~rnp has ised that the circum~tanccs mu;;t tic signi fi cant!) out or the or di nary befo re the g en eral ru le is depaned from. II i s really the rationale of the cases where Cl' SlS haYe hce11 ,11\'ardcc.i th at suc h circumstan ces ha ve been ahk 10 ha, c been id cn ti !ied: ·. l3ougourc C. in his decision in Coldman , Da ta G en eral Australia Pty. l.ld. ale rted the r arti es to reinstatemen t pro ceedings 1h at th ere sc cm~ tn be an inc.r.:a, ing need to earnfullv consid <.: r ll1c po te n ti al consequence~ i n costs of pursuing or resisting reinst at ement proc eedi n gs The re is no doubt in Ill) mind. in the light of current reinsl alcm cn t 111 <1 tt crs be ing dealt " ·i th by th i, Commi ss ion. 1haI the re is a gr ea te r need tod ay for parties lO can: ful l~ consider th e potential consequences in cost s o f pursuing or rc, isting rein st ateme nt p r◊ <.:eedi n gs . and even more so \\'here a process of brinkmanship is use d in an attempt to scct1 re an adl'antagc in whut 111a, be an unt'a ir. u nn::a sonahk or i mprop<.:r Inan11a. 14 395 I.DOC 24 March, 19951 QUEENSLAND GOVERN ME NT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 819 In the mailer no" beforc me the ap plicant t end er ed a lcaer of rcsi g. nation. Wh i le I have taken i nlo account the claim th at th ere was a constructi ve dismi ssa l. the respondent in this ma tter, duri n!! the conlerencc process required by th e Act. of'fercd equi v-alcnt empl oyment i n a sub urban Rr isbanc location. The app lican t. after cons idering th e proposal. decided l o reject th e prnrosal and withdraw fr om t he ap pli ca tion. He later ch anged his mind but dctem1i ned to ~tre for comp.:nsa lion only. It was not un ti l after th e call over ll'h<.: n dal es of h eari ng were set and the respondent made i1 clear that it would vi g.or ()u ~ly d~fo n<l the claim th at the arp li cmll agai n d cc. id cd to \\'ith draw. T he acti on ()f the app lic ant cau,cd the res ponden t to. in my vie\\'. need less ly incur some cos ts i n co 111 me11 ci 11g t he preparation of a de fe nce . The ac tion also c au sed two da y, ,if the Commission ·s calendar to be scl as ide to deal w i th the ma tter whi ch could have othcrwisc be en allocatc:d 10 o th er p ress i ng rcinstawmcnt app lications. Wh ile I am unabk W d ..:1<:rm ine wl1cther the ap plicati on as fi led " ,is frivolous or vexatiou s, I believe that tht.: applican t 's conduct foll owi ng i hc outcome of th t: con ference proceed in gs has been i mprorcr an d unreasonable. The deg ree of i mp roper or un fai r condt1ct needs to he cons idered i n dctcnn ining if. or to what extent. an order for costs sho uld be m~ de. In Goldman v Da ta Gcncrul Australia Pt y. Ltd .. Hou gourc C. , t atcd "a determination may depen d upon the deg re e of un foirness. unn:asonabl cness or impropriety invol ved". In th e matt.; r now before me t he app li cant i nd icmcd his in tention to wi thd rn" some four d ay s after dates of hearing were set. and so me seven wee ks before lhc date on which th e hearing 1va s to t ak e pbcc Wh i le the tim ing 01' t he fi na l de cisi on to withdraw did cause the r c~pondcnt t<> incur sornc unnccc~sar~ costs. t.h c ea rl y ,idvice aller call over did mitigate costs w hich might o th erwise ha l'e hccn i ncurr ed . In Goldman v Da ta Ge neral Australia Pty. l. tc.l . ( 144 ()Gl( i 379) Mackenzie I'. said :- " There nia) be so me cases w he re at the .:nd of the <la v il can he seen th at a pany has ac ted unfai rly . unrcason :ibly or improper!~ i n or i n the course of purs uing or r es isting such re li ef and tha t th ose actions wc•re so unjustifiable that thc proceeding/: have worked as an ac t of oppres sion to t he other si de ." . In the case now be fo re me !he c rn rlo yce ten dered a res ignati on "hic h. il is submitt ed. amoun ted to a constr uc ti ve di s~rnss al. '\ o t" i ths tanding the " r es i gna tion" the employer offered to rc- estah li sh the emplover/cmployee relati onsh i p. The ap p li cant reconsidered his pos it ion and indi cated to the em ployer th at he 1101dd not purs ue his ap plication al al l. I le then sought fu rther infi.1 rrna1ion an d pursued a cla im for com pen sa tion on l) . Th e ap p li cation wa s the n listed for heari ng fo llowi ng a ca ll m-cr an d then th e upplicant so ugh t to wi thdraw th e prm:eedings altogether. It is my ove ra ll vi ew t ha t the applicant ha s act ed unrcasonablv under the t; i rc um stanccs for reasons wh i ch I find unj ustifiable. w i~h the resu lt that the. proc eedi ngs l11ivtc become oppressive to the respondent. In t ho~e ci r cu mstances . I co n~ ider the co urse of the proceedings be fore 11 1c are su fficien t ly ahno nnal ,o j usti f\ an or de r for some costs upon the withdrawal o f the app li cation. 152583 - 60 In my view th e respondent is ent it l ed Lo som e rccove n· of costs ari si ng out of prcparati,) n by an age nt and app earance by a,; agent on the mauer. T he app licant ·s sa lary pack age was mad e up of base salary of $45.000 p.a. w ge ther wi th acce ss to a bonus syste m w hich peaked at $24,000 p. a. and fr ee use o f a compan) vehi cle. I k had heen employed for approximaiely eight years. In the li ght of tile amount of po ss ible compensation should his appi i ca li on have been succ ess ful. it was not unreasona ble that the Company seek leg al adv i ce on the ma tter an d engage the services o f an i nd ustrial advocate as agen t. Ms l'ri (lr. for thc ap plicant. advi sed me that she info rm ed th e r espond en t Solicitor 1ha l an obj ection w ou ld be made to legal rc prc sc n1 a1ion if the ma l Wr proceeded to h ea ring. T hcr-: appears h l have b.::~n sorne misunderstanding on th is nrnu.er a~ Mr Wr ight o f .\1cssrs Thoma,. Kin g and Con noll) arpc arc;d fo r t he respond~cnt at lh<.: <: 311 over. llowcv er. Mr Livingstone pr..: pan.:d ma terial and appeare d before me as agcnl for the re spon den t. nn doubt as a r e:<ult of a la ck of agr eeme nt to l ega l re presentation . There is 110 ques tion that it was in the in terest of justi ce that an agent he heard on thi, matte r and I so cert ify . In ass~ssi ng a reasonabl e fi g ur.: to award for costs I lwvc used the highest Magi st ra tes Cou rl Scale as a guide bu t fix.:d an amounl wh i ch I consider ap propriate in the ci rcums tm1ccs. In my vi ew il is only ap propriate to award co:,ts in respect of proceedin gs al\cr the applica nt c hanged his mi nd and decid ed to pur sue .i claim for tolllpe nsa tion only. In my ,·iew a reasonable su m 10 compensate th.: respondent fo r costs reaso nably i ncurred for n:pn;sent at ion b} an agen t. in the part of the proceedings abovcmentioned. is $750.00. I or de r accordi ngly . R.F BECI IL Y. Commissioner. Appeamnc es: Mr R. Li vi ngst on e \>I' Liv ingston~s Austra lia. " i th him Mr D. Wright ofMes sr, Thom as King Connol ly. to r 13 ;, mc Ford Pty . L td . Ms I,; , l' ri\lr . 11 ith her Ms S. Slll ith, for Mr Paul Stone. Op<.: rati ve Dat e: 15 M ,1 rch 199 5 Decision -· CoSlS Releas ed : 15 l\farc.h 1995 ##############11####################11/lll##############lill# 14395 __ 1. DOC -- 2 of 2 --