the Applicant v Central Desert Regional Council (No 4)
Citation: [2023] FCA 967
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a self-represented applicant, brought proceedings against Central Desert Regional Council (his former employer) alleging breach of employment contract and contraventions of the Fair Work Act. Earlier in the proceedings, the court had struck out allegations of contravention of s.340 (general protections). A mediation was ordered on 16 February 2023. the Applicant failed to engage with the mediation process, ignoring multiple emails from the Registrar and not responding to intake call attempts. He subsequently failed to attend a case management hearing on 28 April 2023, leading to dismissal of his application under r.5.23.
What was decided
the Respondent applied for costs under s.570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act on the grounds that the Applicant's unreasonable omissions caused the Respondent to incur costs. The court found that the Applicant's failure to engage with the mediation process and his non-attendance at the case management hearing constituted unreasonable omissions. Despite his self-represented status, the Applicant was aware that court orders remained operative and made no advance notice of his intention not to participate. The court ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent's costs of the mediation and case management hearing.
What it means for employers
Employers can obtain costs orders against self-represented employees who fail to engage properly with court-ordered dispute resolution or case management processes. Unreasonable conduct such as ignoring mediation processes and failing to appear at hearings can result in costs liability despite s.570 protections.
What it means for employees
Self-represented litigants remain subject to court orders requiring participation in mediation and attendance at hearings. Failure to engage, even when self-represented, can result in costs orders against the employee. The policy favouring employee access to justice does not excuse unreasonable conduct.
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/2023/2023fca0967Want 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