Get Ahead of Fair Work Claims: Strategic Legal Advice Is A ‘Better’ Defence
In our region, there appears to be a growing discourse that Fair Work claims are easy money-makers for employees and that employers don’t need to take claims seriously because they can just pay employees a small settlement sum and settle at Conciliation. Recent data from the Fair Work Commission does lend some support to this theory, given that claims (especially ‘General Protections’ claims) are on the rise, with the majority settling for somewhere under $5,000[1].
We’ve even heard this taken so far as to suggest that Employers shouldn’t get legal advice or representation in these matters at all. That they should self-represent and just ‘pay up’ a small amount at Conciliation for the claim to go away. While that is an option for employers, a recent Fair Work decision demonstrates that there is a better option available. That is, to acquire good, strategic legal advice at the earliest possible stage. Not only could that result in having the claim dismissed without paying any amount to the employee, but an employer can also be entitled to seek repayment of its’ legal costs.
The following case summary serves as a great example of the benefits available to employers (and employees) obtain by having quality and strategic legal advice. It also does serve as a cautionary tale for self-represented parties and the pitfalls of progressing a claim with little understanding of the applicable law.
[1] https://www.fwc.gov.au/about-us/news-and-media/news/presidents-statement-reforms-general-protections-dismissal-application
Case Summary: Singha v Metal Manufactures Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2817
The case of Singha v Metal Manufactures Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2817 involved an application made by Metal Manufactures Pty Ltd (the Employer) for their former employee, Mr Singha (the Employee) to pay the legal fees incurred by the Employer in responding to the Employee’s unfair dismissal claim.
The Employee’s legal claim was easily dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, on the basis that the Employee very clearly earned above the high-income threshold and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The Employee was warned (both by the Employer’s legal representatives and by the Fair Work Commission) that this would result in the Employee being prevented from continuing his claim. While the Employee was invited to make submissions as to why his claim should continue, those submissions did not attempt to answer the jurisdictional issue, they focused on facts that were irrelevant and sadly suffered the fatal flaw of relying on artificial intelligence which referred to previous decisions that didn’t exist.
Deputy President Boyce found that the Employee’s claim had no reasonable prospects of success from the outset, with the Employee’s insistence on pursuing the claims despite warning as to its’ shortcomings amounting to unreasonable conduct. DP Boyce ordered that the Employee pay the legal costs of the Employer, to the tune of just under $8,000.
Legal Basis
The ‘general rule’ in Fair Work Claims is that the parties must pay their own costs, if any. However, some sections of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) provide specific exceptions to this rule.
In this particular case, DP Boyce provided an in-depth analysis of sections 400A(1) and 611(2)(b) of the FW Act, which broadly stipulate that one party may be required to pay the costs of the other, if it would have been reasonably apparent to a party that their claim had no reasonable or substantial prospects of success or if the application was commenced for vexatious reasons.
Here, DP Boyce found that there was never any reasonable prospects of success, that the application was doomed to fail and that this should have been reasonably apparent to the Employee. This was primarily because there was no dispute that the Employee was paid more than the high-income threshold and that fact meant the Employee was statute-barred from bringing an unfair dismissal claim. There were also some inherent issues with the submissions made by the Employee, in that he failed to properly address the jurisdictional prohibition, but also that his submissions included multiple references to cases that did not exist (which he admitted was because he had used AI to prepare the submissions).
Key Takeaways
This case highlights the advantage employers will have if they obtain good quality, strategic legal advice. The same can be said for employees, because had Mr Singh sought legal advice regarding the merits of his claim, he likely would have been advised not to commence the claim at all (or to consider another type of claim, if one was available).
It also demonstrates the pitfalls of self-representation. Claims made in the Fair Work Commission’s jurisdiction are inherently complex and parties should seek legal advice early, to ensure they understand the threshold requirements and legal issues that will be put to them. Employers in particular should not take these claims lightly and should be confident that with the right legal advice, vexatious or unreasonable claims can be properly defended without having to throw away money that could be better spent elsewhere in their business.
The team at Enterprise Legal are experts in this area and have assisted both employees and employers achieve great results by providing strategic legal advice. Contact our expert Disputes Team on (07) 4646 2621.
