A Queensland RSL club has failed in its bid to make a former employee pay more than $18,000 in legal costs after his general protections claim was dropped. The Fair Work Commission ruled that the self-represented employee should not be penalised for his lack of legal knowledge. This was despite the employee repeatedly missing filing deadlines and ultimately abandoning his claim.
The Commission said it had to take a “cautious approach” to awarding costs because it serves as a venue for “mostly self-represented applicants.” It stated that a “lay person” can’t be expected to prosecute a claim with the same precision as a lawyer.
In this article, we’ll take a look at the events of this general protections claim. We’ll also look at another case involving a former Liberal candidate who was ordered to pay his ex-employer’s legal costs because his claim was “doomed to fail.”
Fair Work rejects $18K general protections claim costs claim against employee
The following events took place in the general protections case Tewantin Noosa RSL & Citizens Memorial Club, Kevin Graham v Michael Sue See [2025].. The dispute originated with Mr. Sue See’s employment status at Tewantin Noosa RSL. The RSL Board had initially made a decision to dismiss him. Mr. Sue See subsequently lodged a general protections claim with the Fair Work Commission. This was directed at Tewantin Noosa RSL and its chairman, Mr. Graham.
A few days after Mr. Sue See submitted his claim, the RSL Board rescinded his dismissal. This was because it had not reached a quorum on the decision to sack him. But despite this, Mr. Sue See continued with his general protections claim. He lodged it on his own behalf, without legal advice, based on his understanding of general protections matters. Mr. Sue See also initiated a separate proceeding in the Supreme Court of Queensland alleging Tewantin Noosa RSL breached his employment contract.
Credit: LinkedIn
Employer sought to recover 60% of their legal costs
Tewantin Noosa RSL and Mr. Graham defended the Fair Work Commission claim. The club prepared for a jurisdictional hearing that would seek to determine whether Mr. Sue See was validly dismissed. During Commission proceedings, Mr. Sue See failed to comply with directions to file submissions and evidence for the jurisdictional hearing. This was despite being granted three time extensions.
Mr. Sue See ultimately discontinued his general protections claim prior to the jurisdictional hearing. This was because he failed to win a stay; i.e. an order from the Commission to pause proceedings until an appeal is heard. On 13 March 2025, Tewantin Noosa RSL and Mr. Graham made a costs application with the Fair Work Commission. They sought an order that would force Mr. Sue See to pay 60% of their $31,379.35 in legal costs incurred defending the general protections claim.
RSL argued general protections claim was vexatious
Tewantin Noosa RSL and Mr. Graham argued to the Fair Work Commission that Mr. Sue See should pay their costs on two primary grounds. Firstly, they contended that he acted unreasonably in initiating the general protections claim. Secondly, Tewantin Noosa RSL and Mr. Graham argued that Mr. Sue See acted vexatiously or without reasonable cause by pursuing the matter. This was because he continued to pursue it after the RSL Board rescinded the decision to dismiss him. Also, because the claim against Mr. Graham (who was not on the Board when the termination occurred) was unsustainable. They argued Mr. Sue See caused them to incur significant costs while not intending to prosecute the substantive proceedings.
Meanwhile, Mr. Sue See argued to the Commission that his decision to discontinue the general protections claim and continue with the Supreme Court action was influenced by his “impecuniosity.” He said that he included Mr. Graham in the general protections claim because he was the chairman of the club at the time. He said he named him in the claim based on information he read on the Fair Work website. Mr. Sue See also alleged Mr. Graham had created a hostile work environment via “ongoing harassment” during his time at the RSL.
Fair Work made allowances for being self-represented
In response to the costs claim, the Fair Work Commission found that Mr. Sue See was “perfectly entitled” to pursue different remedies under different jurisdictions. This was referring to his general protections claim and his legal action via the Supreme Court. The Commission noted that the two matters had a “common core” but offered different remedies.
As Mr. Sue See was a self-represented applicant, the Commission sympathised with his position. It said that he had made the general protections claim based on his own understanding of general protections matters. While the Commission acknowledged that a legal professional would prosecute a claim differently, it also accepted that a “lay person” may sometimes lodge a claim that is “without merit.”
Fair Work: We’re a ‘venue for mostly self-represented applicants’
The Fair Work Commission said that it needed to take a “cautious approach” when evaluating whether an application was vexatious. This is because it is a tribunal where “self-representation is encouraged.” It further stated that the Commission is today a “venue for mostly self-represented applicants” who seek to have disputes handled in a “more informal way.”
Regarding Mr. Sue See’s repeated failure to comply with directions, the Fair Work Commission acknowledged that its directions “are not an optional requirement.” However, it stated that a costs application was not the vehicle for Tewantin Noosa RSL or Mr. Graham to “penalise” Mr. Sue See.
Given that it deals with a large number of self-represented applicants, the Commission said that its directions are not always treated “with the same reverence and compliance” as in other jurisdictions. It said that it empathised with Tewantin Noosa RSL’s frustrations. However, the Commission said that it was not grounds for requesting that Mr. Sue See pay their costs.
‘Lay person’ given benefit of the doubt
The Fair Work Commission also concluded that it wasn’t unreasonable for Mr. Sue See to continue with the general promotions claim after the RSL had rescinded its decision. It accepted that Mr. Sue See’s decision to focus on the Supreme Court matter was likely a result of his impecuniosity.
In addition, the claim against Mr. Graham was not considered vexatious because Mr. Sue See was “navigating” the initial application form as a “lay person.” The Commission also said that it was not proven that Mr. Graham had incurred specific legal costs. It also declined to award costs for Tewantin Noosa RSL’s and Mr. Graham’s barrister fees. This was because the Commission believed that legal representation for both parties had “created additional complexity, rather than alleviating it.” It therefore felt that costs should not be awarded for something that was not necessary in the first place.
Ultimately, the Commission rejected Tewantin Noosa RSL’s and Mr. Graham’s costs application.
Fed election candidate who used Indigenous slur forced to pay unfair dismissal claim costs
A recent example of where costs were awarded against an employee is the Fair Work unfair dismissal NSW case Vivek Singha v Metal Manufactures Pty Limited [2025]. It involved Vivek Singha, who in the 2025 federal election ran as a Liberal candidate for the Western Sydney seat of Fowler. In the lead up, the ABC reported that Mr. Singha had used derogatory terms for Indigenous Australians in a series of X posts a few years earlier. Mr. Singha failed to win the electoral seat.
Things got worse for him in June 2025. This was when his former employer Metal Manufacturers applied for costs to be awarded against him for lodging an unreasonable Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. Mr. Singha, who was self-represented, filed the application with the Fair Work Commission in March 2025. He sought reinstatement and made various allegations of fraud against his former employer.
Metal Manufactures responded by raising a jurisdictional objection to the application. The company contended that Mr. Singha’s employment was not covered by a modern award or enterprise agreement. It also argued that Mr. Singha’s $200,000 annual salary exceeded the Fair Work unfair dismissal high income threshold, making him ineligible to make an application. The threshold at the time of lodgement was $175,000.
Credit: LinkedIn
Argued Fair Work unfair dismissal threshold was ‘ambiguous’
On 28 April 2025, the Fair Work Commission emailed Mr. Singha requesting clarification on the basis on which he believed he fell under the high income threshold. Despite a follow-up email and a granted extension, Mr. Singha only responded on 8 May 2025. In his email, he asserted that his annual salary “appeared” to exceed the high income threshold. However, Mr. Singha argued that the high income threshold’s application was “ambiguous.”
He suggested that he may not have breached the income threshold because his “actual” earnings did not exceed the threshold and his future earnings were “not guaranteed”. He also characterised the high income threshold objection as a “distraction” from the substance of his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, including his role as a “whistleblower.”
Tanked Fair Work unfair dismissal claim by not responding
On 9 May 2025, the Fair Work Commission sent another email to Mr. Singha. It said that his argument about the high income threshold being ambiguous or subject to an “actual earnings test” were not sustainable. He was also reminded that the Fair Work cases he cited in his application rejected the assertions he was making. Crucially, the email stated that if his position remained unchanged at the conclusion of a jurisdictional hearing, his application would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Mr. Singha was made aware of the section of the Fair Work Act 2009 that stipulates that costs can be awarded against an employee for pursuing an unsustainable Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. However, he did not respond to this email nor discontinue his unfair dismissal claim. A jurisdictional hearing was subsequently determined on the papers, and the objection was upheld on 11 June 2025. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed the same day.
Unfair dismissal NSW: Employer sought costs, arguing claim was ‘doomed to fail’
Metal Manufactures filed an application for costs against Mr. Singha on 25 June 2025. The company argued that Mr. Singha had engaged in unreasonable conduct by continuing the application despite the clear advice from the Fair Work Commission. It also contended that Mr. Singha was not protected from unfair dismissal. Also, that it should have been apparent to him that his claim “had no reasonable prospects of success.” Metal Manufactures also argued that from at least 9 May 2025 onwards it should have been apparent to him that the application was “doomed to fail”
Alleged employee referenced two fake cases in Fair Work unfair dismissal claim
Metal Manufactures raised concerns that the proceedings were being used as “some sort of platform” to make allegations against the company, without any factual foundation or relevance which is not appropriate. It also noted that Mr. Singha, who admitted to using AI to file his claim, had referenced two non-existent cases in his oral submissions. Metal Manufactures suggested that these cases may have been referenced via “reliance on some form of artificial intelligence.”
Mr. Singha, meanwhile, provided the Fair Work Commission with a few reasons why it should not award costs against him. This included the fact that he had “limited” financial means, the illness of his 85-year-old father and that he was searching for accommodation for his father and sister. Mr. Singha also highlighted that he was running as a candidate in a federal election at the time that he lodged his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim.
Unfair dismissal NSW: Over 7K of costs awarded against employee
The Fair Work Commission was satisfied that it should have “reasonably been apparent” to Mr. Singha that his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospects of success. This finding was based on the fact that Mr. Singha’s annual salary was above the high income threshold and that he was an award-free employee.
The decision found that costs were caused to be incurred by Metal Manufacturers from 10 May 2025. This was because Mr. Singha continued to pursue his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim despite being told by the Commission that the high income threshold applied to him.
The Commission’s discretion to award costs was therefore enlivened. Taking into account the personal reasons Mr. Singha presented, it determined that these reas“`ons were not sufficient to prevent the exercise of discretion to award costs. An order for costs was therefore made in favour of Metal Manufactures. The Commission ordered Mr. Singha to pay the company $7,689 within 21 days.
Read more: General Protections Claim or Unfair Dismissal Claim? The distinction and relationship.
We can help you make a Fair Work claim
If you’ve been unfairly dismissed, treated badly for standing up for your rights, or subjected to discrimination, A Whole New Approach can help you make a Fair Work claim. Our experienced workplace advisors will explain your options, prepare your case and guide you through the process from start to finish.
But don’t delay – strict deadlines apply. Fair Work unfair dismissal and general protections claims must be lodged within 21 days of your dismissal. Contact us today at 1300 766 700 today for free and confidential discussion.
