//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
austlii:qld/QIRComm/2002/22
defendant. Application for costs dismissed
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission refused to award costs against an unsuccessful applicant for leave to appeal. The Commission held that costs under s. 335(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 are only awarded where proceedings are vexatious or without reasonable cause. Here, the applicant's lawyers had made a forensic error in interpreting a new and poorly drafted law. This did not amount to vexation or lack of reasonable cause because the weakness of the argument was only obvious with hindsight. The general rule in industrial proceedings is that parties bear their own costs.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Industrial Relations Act 1999 - s. 335 - application for costs
Ian James Walters AND B.T. Equipment Pty Ltd (No 2) (No. B2306 of 2001)
In dismissing the application for leave to appeal on 15 February 2002 we reserved the question of costs. By consent of the parties submissions on costs were made in writing. We have now had the opportunity to peruse those submissions.
The purpose of s. 335(1) is, plainly enough, to free parties from the risk of having to pay the cost of an opposing party whilst giving some measure of protection to parties defending proceedings which have been instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause, compare Heidt v Chrysler Australia Limited (1976) 26FLR 257 at 272 per Northrop J. Here, the application for leave to appeal was neither made vexatiously nor made without reasonable cause. The most severe criticism which may be made of the application for leave is that the applicant's legal advisers made a forensic error in the construction of a novel, clumsily drafted and untested statutory provision. A conclusion that the application was not arguable may only be reached by basking in the wisdom of hindsight. There was no vexation or abuse of process.
Mr M.K. Conrick instructed by Praeger Batt Solicitors for the applicant.
Mr P. Mylne instructed by Burns Lawyers for the respondent.
Walters
BT Equipment Pty Ltd No 2 [2002] QIRComm 22; 169 QGIG 227
Application for costs dismissed