TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – costs – ss.390, 394, 400A, 401, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – Mrs Sologinkin had her application for an unfair dismissal remedy dismissed by the Commission on grounds her dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable – Coty made an application for costs against Mrs Sologinkin on the grounds that it should have been reasonably apparent that her application had no reasonable prospect of success – Coty also made an application for costs against Mrs Sologinkin’s representative Australian Dismissal Services on the grounds that they caused Coty to incur costs through an unreasonable act or omission – the Commission considered the principles of when an application is made without reasonable cause summarised in Keep v Performance Automobiles and found that Mrs Sologinkin had a reasonably arguable case given her lengthy unblemished service and apology she had sent to the client – Coty alleged that Australian Dismissal Services had caused Coty to incur costs due to an unreasonable act or omission in failing to settle the matter based on an offer from Coty – the Commission found that given Mrs Sologinkin had an arguable case it was not unreasonable to reject the offer – application for costs dismissed. Sologinkin v Cosmetic Suppliers P/L t/a Coty
…
