Employment law for employers

Cost awards in unfair dismissal cases – part 1

Home → Legal insights → Cost awards in unfair dismissal cases – part 1

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–5 minutes

Being in business is hard work at the best of times; having to juggle the needs of customers, the demands of financiers and earning a dollar at the end of the day.  One of the most demanding aspects for many business owners is managing the performance of employees.  Given the industrial relations landscape in Australia, employers need to take care if wanting to terminate an employee because of misconduct or ongoing poor performance, lest they risk an unfair dismissal claim.

The unfair dismissal process

Despite the best efforts of employers in managing the dismissal process, many claims for unfair dismissal are still pursued by aggrieved employees before the Fair Work Commission (FWC).  While most unfair dismissal claims are settled at the conciliation stage, it is not uncommon for unmeritorious unfair dismissal claims to still be pursued before the FWC by way of a formal hearing.

Employers in response have little option but to incur costs in defending such claims so as to limit exposure to compensation orders of up to twenty-six (26) weeks of the employee’s wage at the time of termination.

In the event the employer prevails in defending an unfair dismissal claim at a formal hearing, the question asked is what costs is the employer entitled to recover from the unsuccessful employee complainant?

Fair Work Act provisions

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Qld) (FWA) is the piece of legislation that governs, together with any relevant modern award, the employment relationship for most employers and employees in Australia.

Within the context of an unfair dismissal claim, under the FWA the starting position is that a complainant employee or respondent employer must obtain the leave of the FWC in order to be legally represented at a hearing.[1]   In other words, each party in the first instance is expected to conduct their own case.

Even if an employer is not legally represented, it will potentially still incur significant costs in defending an unfair dismissal claim in a formal hearing.  For example, evidence is usually led by way of affidavit from each witness to be called in support of the case.  Considerable time will be involved in preparing the required affidavit evidence.  In addition, any witness swearing the affidavit to be relied upon at the hearing will be required to attend the hearing to tender their affidavit evidence and to be cross-examined upon it.

Considering the number of matters dealt with by the FWC on a daily basis, even a simple unfair dismissal case with only one complainant and one respondent can be expected to consume at least half a day.  That is wasted, unproductive time.

Costs

If the employer is successful in defending the unfair dismissal claim, one would assume the employer would be entitled to some type of compensation for the loss and inconvenience incurred in defending the claim.

Unfortunately, the starting position is that this is not the case.  Under the FWC, a party to an unfair dismissal application, be it the complainant employee or the respondent employer, must bear its own costs in relation to a matter.[2]  This starting position applies regardless of whether or not a party is legally represented.  Costs can however be ordered against a party if the FWC is satisfied that:

  • the applicant or the respondent was acting vexatiously or without reasonable cause; or
  • it should have been reasonably apparent to the relevant party that they had no reasonable prospect of success.[3]

Costs can also be ordered against a party if the FWC is satisfied the party caused those costs to be incurred because of an unreasonable act or omission in connection with the conduct or continuation of the matter.[4]  Unfortunately for an employer successfully defending an unfair dismissal application, the bar to get a costs order is in most cases too high.

Takeaways

Costs will in most, but not all cases, will not be awarded against the unsuccessful party in an unfair dismissal application.

Links and further references

Legislation

Fair Work Act 2009 (Qld)

Further information on unfair dismissal application

If you need advice on unfair dismissal claims, contact Dundas Lawyers Gold Coast for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

Mitch Brown - Dundas Lawyers

[1] Section 596.

[2] Section 611(1).

[3] Section 611(2).

[4] Section 400A.


Related insights about unfair dismissal applications

  • Telegram terror content: eSafety alleges Online Safety Act breach

    Telegram terror content: eSafety alleges Online Safety Act breach

    Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia (Court) against Emirati-based Telegram FZ-LLC (Trade License Number 94349) (Telegram), alleging that it failed to comply with obligations to detect, deter and disrupt the distribution of pro-terror material and remove unlawful material from its messaging service. The proceedings, eSafety Commissioner v…

    Read more …

  • Default discovery: Queensland vs Federal position

    Default discovery: Queensland vs Federal position

    In the Supreme Court of Queensland (Supreme Court), the right to an exchange of documents is the default position in proceedings started by claim, while in the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) there is no entitlement to exchange of documents, and a party must persuade the Court that this exchange is necessary, proportionate and…

    Read more …

  • AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all

    AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all

    Australia does not have any standalone legislation addressing how businesses can safely implement Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Use of AI by Australian businesses is, however, regulated, not by a patchwork combination of Federal and State legislation, industry-specific legislation and standards, professional body rules and guidance issued by government departments and other regulators.  This article discusses the…

    Read more …

  • AI evidence misleading Court:  Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    AI evidence misleading Court: Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    On 17 June 2026, Symons J delivered judgment in the case of Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 (Ba v Sterling Parts).  Ba v Sterling Parts was a proceeding brought by Weiman Ba (Applicant) in the second division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Court).  Symons J dismissed…

    Read more …

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing.  This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note

    Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note

    On 16 April 2026, the Federal Court of Australia (Court) published the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) (Cth) (GenAI Practice Note). 

    Read more …

  • Evidence of economic loss required in defamation cases

    Evidence of economic loss required in defamation cases

    Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd v Australasian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 924 (Australian Security Academy) involved alleged defamatory imputations against Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd (Applicant) by the Australian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd (Respondent).  The decision highlights that no defamatory imputations will exist where no…

    Read more …

  • Apple and Google misused market power to monopolise app stores

    Apple and Google misused market power to monopolise app stores

    On 12 August 2025, Justice Beach of the Federal Court of Australia (Court) delivered four (4) landmark judgments.  The decisions of Epic Games, Inc & Anor v Apple Inc & Anor (EG v Apple) and Epic Games, Inc & Anor v Google LLC & Ors (EG v Google), together the (EG Cases), alongside Anthony &…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend