Grofski v Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd (No 2)
Citation: [2026] FCA 124
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
The Applicant brought a claim against Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). During the proceedings, the Applicant made an interlocutory application seeking leave to further amend the originating application and statement of claim. In the course of that application, the Applicant provided two further amended statements of claim to the Respondents and supplied extensive material. The Applicant also filed a fifth further amended statement of claim in breach of court orders. The Respondents sought a costs order against the Applicant under section 570 of the Fair Work Act, which limits when costs can be awarded in workplace matters.
What was decided
The court considered whether section 570 of the Fair Work Act was engaged by the Applicant's conduct in prosecuting the interlocutory application. Section 570 generally prevents costs orders in Fair Work matters unless a party acted vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or caused costs to be incurred unreasonably. The court examined whether the Applicant's conduct, including providing extensive material to the Respondents and filing a further amended statement of claim in breach of orders, met the threshold required under section 570 to justify a costs award. The source text is truncated and does not record the final costs ruling.
What it means for employers
Employers in Fair Work proceedings should be aware that section 570 of the Fair Work Act sets a high bar for recovering legal costs, even when an employee repeatedly amends their claim or breaches court orders. However, conduct such as filing documents in breach of orders may still support a costs application. Employers should document any procedural breaches carefully and seek legal advice before applying for costs.
What it means for employees
Employees pursuing Fair Work claims are generally protected from paying the other side’s legal costs, but that protection is not absolute. Filing documents in breach of court orders or conducting proceedings in a way that unreasonably increases costs can put a costs order at risk. Employees should follow all court directions carefully and take legal advice before making multiple amendments to their claim.
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/2026/2026fca0124Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The full dataset, with structured fields for awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts, is available through the Business API. FairWork Mate answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + advisor access is a paid product. Contact us for pricing or a 50% off first month.
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 →