TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – contract for specified term – costs – ss.394, 400A, 611 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – at first instance appellant’s application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed for jurisdictional reasons – appellant sought permission to appeal – alleged improper actions by the respondent, that the Commission made errors of fact and that the Commission did not adequately consider the impact his ill health had on his ability to prepare for the first instance hearing – appellant refused to comply with Commission’s directions or provide an outline of submissions when seeking permission to appeal – permission to appeal was refused because nothing in the available information indicated an appeal would be in the public interest – respondent applied for appeal costs under ss.611(2) and 400A of FW Act – appellant did not comply with directions to provide submissions and evidence in reply for the costs application – did not attend the nominated hearing date – sought a lengthy adjournment supported by medical certificates – Bench decided to determine the costs application without submissions by the appellant on 14 June 2016 because appellant was only required to provide a written submission and had demonstrated he could do this in prior correspondence on 15 May 2016 – Bench first considered s.611(2) – respondent submitted the appeal was without merit – no arguable point of law – no matter of public interest or a substantial error of fact – no reasonable prospects of success due to the deficiencies in the grounds of appeal – held appellant had provided unsupported grounds of appeal that challenged the factual and legal basis of the first instance decision – held grounds could have been arguable if supported by proper submissions and the jurisdictional issues may have meant permission to appeal could have been granted – hence no costs ordered under s. 611(2) – Bench then considered s.400A – considered whether s.400A applies to unfair dismissal appeals – held an appeal against an unfair dismissal decision is a proceeding to enforce the Commission’s duty to decide an unfair dismissal remedy under Pt. 3-2 and hence s.400A does apply to appeals against a decision of a Pt.3-2 application – held history and legislative intent supports this interpretation – respondent submitted appellant engaged in numerous unreasonable acts and omissions that caused them all of their appeal costs – Bench held appellant acted unreasonably in not filing an appeal book and submissions – applying to adjourn hearing dates at late notice and not attending hearing dates when the material demonstrated he was not incapable of attending – held this caused the respondent to incur costs to attend a second hearing only because they had to prepare for one hearing anyway – costs of $2,500 ordered. Appeal by Gugiatti against decision of Williams C of 9 April 2015 [[2015] FWC 2447] Re: SolarisCare Foundation Ltd
…
