Robert Drobek and NCR Australia Pty Limited [2005] NSWIRComm 1156

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

CITATION: Robert Drobek and NCR Australia Pty Limited [2005] NSWIRComm 1156

APPLICANT Robert Drobek PARTIES: RESPONDENT NCR Australia Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S): 4835 of 2004

CORAM: Murphy C

CATCHWORDS: Costs sought following failure of applicant to appear for hearing when aware of listing - substantive case dismissed for Want of Prosecution, with costs reserved. Applicant's failure to provide phone number or proper reliable addresses taken into account. Applicant's belated claim of not having employer's property, basis of earlier agreed settlement, and belated claim for maximum compensation were matters deserving of costs order against applicant.

LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996

HEARING DATES: 08/04/2005; 08/26/2005 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 09/29/2005

APPLICANT Mr Robert Drobek - no appearance LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

RESPONDENT Ms Streimer of Australian Industry Group

DECISION: - 1 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

CORAM: MURPHY C

Date of issue: 29th September, 2005.

Matter No IRC 4835 of 2004

ROBERT DROBEK AND NCR AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

Application by Robert Drobek re unfair dismissal pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996

DECISION

[2005] NSWIRComm 1156

EX TEMPORE DECISION RE COSTS

Exparte

1 This matter came to the Commission today for hearing of this matter when earlier listed for the purpose of hearing respondent's claim for costs and to give an opportunity for the applicant to attend this Commission. The substantive claim was previously listed on 4 August for hearing, when the matter was dismissed for Want of Prosecution pursuant to Rule 146. On that occasion there was no appearance by the applicant. The respondent's representative Ms Streimer appears here today as an Australian Industry Group officer on behalf of her clients, NCR Australia Pty Ltd, seeking costs against the applicant which was a question reserved on 4th August. 2 Mr Drobek was previously corresponded with, given his failure to attend on the day of hearing of the substantive matter on 8 July. The Commission is reminded by Ms Streimer that on that day her clients appeared with four witnesses and had overnight arranged for a witness in the United States to give evidence by telephone. The applicant's failure to appear that day has a history which has been outlined in some elaborate submissions given to the Commission here this morning both in writing and orally by Ms Streimer. I have marked the submissions of Ms Streimer MFI 1 and annexure 1, and have had the opportunity now to absorb all those issues raised by Ms Streimer.