Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (WA Branch) v Woolworths Limited (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 4 (7 February 2008)

Last Updated: 7 February 2008

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (WA Branch) v Woolworths Limited (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 4

AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION (WA BRANCH) v WOOLWORTHS LIMITED
WAD 71 OF 2007

SPENDER, SIOPIS AND GILMOUR JJ
7 FEBRUARY 2008
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD 71 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION (WA BRANCH) Appellant
AND:	WOOLWORTHS LIMITED Respondent

JUDGES:	SPENDER, SIOPIS AND GILMOUR JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	7 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. There be no order as to costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD 71 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION (WA BRANCH) Appellant
AND:	WOOLWORTHS LIMITED Respondent

JUDGES:	SPENDER, SIOPIS AND GILMOUR JJ
DATE:	7 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1 When the judgment of the Full Court in this matter was handed down on 21 December 2007, there was some argument on the matter of costs. Woolworths Limited (Woolworths) sought costs of the appeal, submitting that the bringing of the appeal was unreasonable.

2 Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (WA Branch) (the Union) argued that there should be no order as to costs as the bringing of the appeal was neither unreasonable nor vexatious.

3 By a letter addressed to the Associate to Justice Siopis dated 21 December 2007, the Union repeated its contention that there should be no order as to costs. By a letter dated 22 January 2008 to the Associate to Justice Siopis, Woolworths contended to the contrary.

4 The Court has considered the submissions concerning costs.

5 In all the circumstances, and particularly the circumstance that the Union succeeded in making good its grounds for appeal, but that Woolworth’s Notice of Contention was ultimately (by a majority) successful, the appeal by the Union was neither vexatious or prosecuted without reasonable cause.

6 In those circumstances, it is appropriate that the Court make no order as to costs of the appeal.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Spender, Siopis and Gilmour.

Associate:

Dated: 7 February 2008

Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr M Cox
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Chapmans Barristers & Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr S D Harben
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	21 December 2007
Date of Judgment:	7 February 2008