Grofski v Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd (Leave to Appeal)

[2026] FCA 921

Federal Court of Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Leave to Appeal
3. › Interlocutory costs order
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Fair Work Act s 570(2)(b) — unreasonable act or omission
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Corporations Act s 1317AH(3)(b) — whistleblower proceedings
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Leave to amend — self-represented litigant — excessive volume of material

A primary judge's reasons on an interlocutory costs application are not to be construed minutely and finely with an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error; the Décor test is applied at a reasonably impressionistic level to avoid turning a leave application into a premature merits appeal.
Under s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), there is no requirement that the court's reasons be structured to deal discretely with each integer of unreasonableness and causation; contextual consideration of the litigant's broader procedural conduct in assessing whether a specific act was unreasonable is permissible.
The question of whether the precise appellate standard of review for the statutory preconditions to the s 570(2) costs discretion (as distinct from the exercise of the discretion itself) is the House v The King standard or a correctness standard was expressly left open.