the Applicant v Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate
Citation: [2013] FCA 1053
What happened
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 Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs. The Respondent then requested information from the Applicant regarding his entitlement to claim those costs, specifically concerning whether he was liable for legal fees paid by his former solicitors. the Applicant argued the court was 'functus officio' and could not make such an order.
What was decided
The Federal Court dismissed the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal. The court found that Gilmour J did not err in law when ordering the Applicant 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 Respondent 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/2013/2013fca1053Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99
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