the Applicant v Chandler Macleod Group Limited (Costs)
At a glance
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, who represented himself (a litigant in person), brought proceedings against Chandler Macleod Group Limited under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). After the substantive matter was resolved, Chandler Macleod applied to the Federal Court of Australia for a costs order against the Applicant. The court considered two questions: whether the Applicant had started the proceedings without reasonable cause, and whether any unreasonable act or omission by the Applicant caused Chandler Macleod to incur legal costs. The court also considered what weight, if any, should be given to the fact that the Applicant was self-represented.
What was decided
The court awarded costs to Chandler Macleod. It found that either the Applicant instituted the proceedings without reasonable cause, or that his unreasonable conduct caused Chandler Macleod to incur costs, satisfying the threshold for a costs order under the Fair Work Act. The court took the Applicant's self-represented status into account but did not treat it as a reason to deny costs. However, Chandler Macleod's application for a lump-sum costs order was not granted, because Chandler Macleod had not followed the court's Practice Note on costs (GPN-COST), which sets out the procedure a party must follow before seeking that type of order.
What it means for employers
Employers facing unmeritorious Fair Work Act claims can apply for a costs order if the Applicant started proceedings without reasonable cause or acted unreasonably in a way that caused the employer to incur costs. However, if seeking a lump-sum costs order, employers must follow the Federal Court's Practice Note GPN-COST before making that application, or the lump-sum request may be refused.
What it means for employees
Employees considering Fair Work Act claims in the Federal Court should be aware that costs can be ordered against them if they bring proceedings without reasonable cause or act unreasonably during the case. Being self-represented does not automatically protect against a costs order. It is important to assess the merits of a claim carefully before filing, and to act reasonably throughout the proceedings.
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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. 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.
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.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.