application for leave to appeal costs order made against applicant by primary judge
whether applicant’s request to have matter listed for urgent case management hearing was unreasonable pursuant to s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
whether primary judge erred in principle in exercising discretion
Quick Take
1A self-represented litigant's request for an urgent case management hearing based on a mischaracterisation of court orders, maintained after the error was pointed out, can constitute an 'unreasonable act' for the purposes of s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act, even accounting for the litigant's self-represented status, where the litigant has demonstrated sophistication and capacity and has received prior procedural guidance from the court.
2The nature and extent of assistance a court must provide a self-represented litigant depends on the litigant's demonstrated capacities; a litigant who has shown intelligence, articulateness and ability to research legal issues may be held to a higher standard of procedural reasonableness.
3Appellate courts will exercise particular caution before interfering with discretionary interlocutory costs orders on matters of practice and procedure, and a costs order of modest quantum ($1,500) will rarely warrant appellate intervention absent a serious error of principle.
