the Applicant v Frankston City Council
Citation: [2012] FCA 1299
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed by Frankston City Council. In his pre-trial contentions, he alleged the Council had taken various acts constituting adverse action against him, including discriminatory treatment related to a physical disability and his family responsibilities. On the first day of trial, the Applicant abandoned most of his adverse action allegations, narrowing the case to only contesting whether his termination from employment was due to disability or parental responsibilities. Eight Council witnesses had filed affidavits addressing all the original claims. Despite abandoning claims, the Applicant required all witnesses to attend for cross-examination on matters no longer in dispute.
What was decided
The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the Applicant's application, finding he had not proven his claims. The Magistrate ordered the Applicant to pay the Council's costs under section 570 of the Fair Work Act, finding that the Applicant's conduct in requiring cross-examination on abandoned claims constituted an unreasonable act that caused the Council to incur unnecessary costs. the Applicant appealed to the Federal Court.
What it means for employers
In employment disputes, employers can apply for costs if applicants engage in unreasonable conduct causing unnecessary legal expense. Requiring witnesses to give evidence on abandoned matters can constitute unreasonable conduct.
What it means for employees
Applicants should manage claims efficiently by abandoning weak claims promptly and not requiring cross-examination on matters they are no longer pursuing. Unreasonable conduct in litigation can result in costs orders against employees.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca1299Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →