Background
Firas Raghib brought judicial-review proceedings concerning two Fair Work Commission decisions involving his former employer, Stantec Australia Pty Ltd. On 15 September 2026, the Federal Court dismissed the application.
Stantec then sought costs under s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), seeking either indemnity costs of $84,345 or party-party costs of $56,230, each as a lump sum. Raghib, who appeared without counsel, opposed costs and challenged inconsistencies in Stantec’s costs evidence.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Wheelahan held that the exceptions to the usual Fair Work Act protection against costs orders were engaged. The judicial-review proceeding had been instituted without reasonable cause, and Raghib’s conduct had also caused Stantec to incur costs unreasonably.
The Court found that the case was always doomed to fail: many review grounds concerned matters not raised before the Commission, other grounds were incoherent or contradicted the record, and the subpoena pursued by Raghib lacked a legitimate forensic purpose. Self-representation and asserted financial hardship did not justify withholding costs.
However, the Court declined to award indemnity costs. Taking a broad-brush, conservative approach to party-party costs, and allowing for errors and unreliability in Stantec’s costs affidavit, the Court fixed Stantec’s recoverable costs at $45,000, exclusive of GST. Stantec was left to bear its own costs of the costs application.
Key Takeaways
- Section 570 can permit costs where a Fair Work Act proceeding was commenced without reasonable cause.
- A self-represented litigant is not insulated from costs consequences for unreasonable conduct.
- Errors in a successful party’s costs evidence can materially reduce a lump-sum costs award.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that the Fair Work Act’s generally protective costs regime does not shield a litigant whose case lacked reasonable prospects from the outset. It also confirms that procedural conduct, including pursuing subpoenas without legitimate forensic utility, may independently support a costs order.
For respondents, the case underscores the value of substantiated lump-sum costs evidence—but also the risk that calculation errors will reduce recovery and leave the party bearing the costs of the costs dispute.