the Applicant v Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate
Citation: [2013] FCA 1053
What happened
John Windus (the applicant) sought leave to appeal an earlier decision by Gilmour J in a case (WAD230/2008). In that earlier case, the court had ordered the Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (the respondent) to pay Windus’ costs. The Director then requested information from Windus regarding his entitlement to claim those costs, specifically concerning whether he was liable for legal fees paid by his former solicitors. Windus argued the court was 'functus officio' and could not make such an order.
What was decided
The Federal Court dismissed Windus’ application for leave to appeal. The court found that Gilmour J did not err in law when ordering Windus to provide information related to his costs claim. The court considered arguments about whether the court was 'functus officio' and rejected them, stating it could make supplemental orders. It also noted concerns raised by the Director regarding union funding of legal fees.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that courts can require employees to provide information related to their costs claims, particularly if there are questions about who is ultimately liable for those costs. Employers may need to investigate and raise concerns if they suspect a party claiming costs has no actual liability for them.
What it means for employees
Employees should keep accurate records of agreements with solicitors regarding payment of legal fees. Be prepared to provide this information if requested when claiming costs, especially in complex cases involving union funding or other arrangements.
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/2013/2013fca1053Want 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 →