Souraki Azad v Mithila Family Trust t/as Rockingham GP (No 2) [2023] FCA 693

Federal Court of Australia

Souraki Azad v Mithila Family Trust t/as Rockingham GP (No 2) [2023] FCA 693 File number: WAD 92 of 2023

Judgment of: COLVIN J

Date of judgment: 23 June 2023

Catchwords: COSTS - urgent application - where first applicant brought urgent application to continue working at the practice of the first to third respondents - where applicants appeared in person - where application against fourth respondent was not pressed following explanation of the processes - where relief not granted on urgent basis against the first to third respondents - where form of application was ex-parte but respondents were served - where application against first to third respondents expressed to be a claim under the Fair Work Act 2011 (Cth) - where Fair Work jurisdiction is known to be no costs jurisdiction - where claim against fourth respondent is not a Fair Work proceeding - where it was apparent that claim against fourth respondent was extremely unlikely to be granted - where alternate processes were not used by the respondents' representatives - costs not awarded for first to third respondents - fourth respondent awarded capped costs

Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 570 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43

Cases cited: BDR21 v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2021] FCA 1347 BKT17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 384 Kazar (Liquidator) v Kargarian; In the matter of Frontier Architects Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2011] FCAFC 136; (2011) 197 FCR 113 Melbourne Stadiums Ltd v Sautner [2015] FCAFC 20; (2015) 229 FCR 221 O'Keefe Nominees Pty Ltd v BP Australia Ltd (No 2) (1995) 55 FCR 591 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd v Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 203 (S) Souraki Azad v Mithila Family Trust t/as Rockingham GP [2023] FCA 404