Grofski v Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd (Leave to Appeal)
Citation: [2026] FCA 921
What happened
The Applicant sought leave to amend her originating application and statement of claim in a proceeding relating to alleged adverse action by Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd and related entities. The claims arise from her employment at the Coppabella Coal Mine. Following an initial interlocutory application, the primary judge made orders regarding the filing of documents. The Applicant subsequently sent additional documents to the court and parties, which were approved for filing. The primary judge dismissed the application but granted provisional leave to file a further amended statement of claim with limitations. Peabody Energy sought costs related to the failed amendment application.
What was decided
The Federal Court refused the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal an order requiring her to pay the Respondents' costs. The primary judge found that the Applicant’s actions in filing additional documents were a breach of previous court orders. The Court considered whether the primary judge’s decision was attended with sufficient doubt, and concluded it wasn't. The decision hinged on whether the Applicant’s conduct caused the Respondents to incur costs under s 570(2) of the Fair Work Act.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure that employees adhere to court orders regarding document filing and procedural requirements in legal proceedings. Failure to do so can lead to cost implications, even if the application is ultimately granted with conditions.
What it means for employees
Employees need to strictly follow court orders and instructions provided by the court or opposing counsel during litigation. Deviating from these orders, even unintentionally, can result in being ordered to pay the other party’s costs.
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/2026/2026fca0921Want 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 →