TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – costs – ss.400A, 401, 611 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy dismissed as minimum employment period not met – respondent subsequently made application for costs against applicant and his legal representatives – Rohan Veal v Sundance Marine P/L cited – relevant principles concerning the interpretation and application of s.611(2)(a) FW Act stated in Church v Eastern Health and Baker v Salva Resources considered – Commission stated the basis on which it decided to dismiss unfair dismissal application is central to determination of costs application – Commission did not decide on jurisdictional points but dismissed unfair dismissal application in relation to the proper construction of a range of FW Act provisions as discussed in primary decision – satisfied that although unfair dismissal application was dismissed, applicant had reasonable prospects of success on basis of his arguments concerning proper construction of relevant legislative provisions – unfair dismissal application not made without reasonable cause – no unreasonable act or omission on part of applicant or his legal representatives which caused respondent to incur costs – respondent’s costs incurred in connection with participation in hearing in which arguable point of law was decided in respondent’s favour – application for costs dismissed. Harris v Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction P/L
…
