Brien v Harrisons Timber and Hardware [2005] NSWIRComm 1115

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

CITATION: Brien v Harrisons Timber and Hardware [2005] NSWIRComm 1115

APPLICANT Adam Matthew Brien PARTIES: RESPONDENT Harrisons Timber and Hardware

FILE NUMBER(S): 6889 of 2003

CORAM: Cambridge C

CATCHWORDS: Unfair dismissal - costs - unreasonable failure to agree to a settlement of the claim - indemnity costs refused - costs granted on usual basis.

LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996[NSW]

Bankstown City Council v Paris (1999) Full Commission of Industrial Relations Commission of NSW [Wright P, Peterson J & Bishop C], 93IR 209. CASES CITED: Four Sons Pty Limited v Sakchai Limsiripothong (No 2), (2000) Full Commission of Industrial Relations Commission of NSW [Wright P, Hungerford J & Cambridge C] 100IR 400.

HEARING DATES: 06/20/2005

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/19/2005

APPLICANT Mr P Bruckner of Counsel Solicitor, Mr K Solari LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr A Britt of Counsel Solicitor, Ms J Williams of Timber Trade Industrial Association

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

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

19 July 2005

Matter No IRC 6889 of 2003

Adam Matthew Brien -V- Harrisons Timber And Hardware

Application by A Brien re unfair dismissal pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.

DECISION ON COSTS

[2005] NSWIRComm 1115

1 This Decision involves an application for costs made on behalf of the successful applicant in this matter, Adam Matthew Brien, (the applicant). The applicant has sought Orders for costs in respect of proceedings arising from his application for unfair dismissal which was made pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 [NSW], (the Act). 2 The applicant was successful in obtaining Orders for compensation made pursuant to sections 89(5) and 89(6) of the Act against Harrison's Timber Pty Limited trading as Harrison's Timber n' Hardware, (the employer). The Orders for compensation were included in the Decision issued in this matter on 25 January 2005. Following that Decision the solicitors acting for the applicant formally requested that the Commission provide an opportunity for the applicant to be heard on the issue of costs. 3 The issue of costs was the subject of Mention proceedings held on 28 February 2005. The Commission was advised that the question of costs was contested and Directions were made for the filing of evidence and other material regarding the issue of costs. Subsequently a Hearing regarding the question of costs was conducted on 20 June 2005, at which time the Commission reserved Decision.