TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – costs – ss.394, 400A, 604, 611 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – respondent’s employment with appellant ceased by way of resignation on 28 July 2016 – respondent contended that he had no choice but to resign and was accordingly dismissed within meaning of s.386(1)(b) of FW Act – on 3 August, respondent entered into settlement agreement with appellant in relation to cessation of employment – respondent filed unfair dismissal application on 23 September 2016 – appellant made multiple jurisdictional objections including: application made out of time, applicant voluntarily entered into settlement agreement and applicant not dismissed – directions issued and submissions lodged accordingly – respondent discontinued application on 31 January 2017 – appellant lodged application for costs on 9 February 2017 – Commission dismissed costs application on 9 May 2017 – appeal filed on 29 May 2017 outlining grounds for appeal with respect to errors as to jurisdiction, exercise of discretion and errors as to fact – appellant submitted Commission erred by dealing with jurisdictional objections separately rather than as a whole in deciding whether application had been made ‘without reasonable cause’ or ‘had no reasonable prospect of success’ – Full Bench not persuaded – held ‘a fair reading of the Decision suggests that the Commissioner did in fact look at the objections as a whole’ – appellant further submitted Commission at first instance committed jurisdictional error in finding reasonable prospects of success should be reasonably apparent to applicant, rather than to a reasonable person – Full Bench disagreed – held passages referred to do not support proposition that Commission applied subjective test – appellant contended Commission at first instance erred in adopting same test for ‘without reasonable cause’, ‘no reasonable prospects of success’ and ‘unreasonable act’ – however, conceded Commission’s approach was consistent with Full Bench authority and Full Bench held that adoption of test posited by appellant would unlikely affect ultimate result – appellant contended Commission erred in determining that there was presumption in FW Act against awarding costs – Full Bench held appellant was making too much of what was ‘merely an infelicitous expression’ – last, appellant submitted Commission erred in consideration of discretion to award costs in: taking into account subjective characteristics of respondent as self-represented litigant, advice given by respondent’s representatives, and amount of costs sought by appellant – Full Bench not persuaded Commission erred in taking into account respondent’s characteristics as a self-represented litigant, or in having regard to advice given by his representative, or that Commission took quantum of costs sought into account in exercise of discretion – permission to appeal refused – application dismissed. Appeal by Baxter Healthcare P/L t/a Baxter Healthcare against decision of Johns C of 9 May 2017 [[2017] FWC 2523] Re: Portelli
