Refusing to Settle and Failing to Prove: Anti-Vaccine Case Ends in Indemnity Costs

An anti-vaccine dismissal case has ended in an expensive and sobering lesson for one former worker who refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The Federal Court recently ordered the dismissed employee to pay indemnity costs to her employer, Golden Cockerel Pty Ltd, after her unsupported claims of religious discrimination and workplace rights were struck out for lacking merit and legal coherence.

This ruling not only reinforces the importance of sound legal foundations in employment claims but also underscores the potential financial consequences of pursuing hopeless litigation.

The applicant was one of eight employees initially challenging their dismissals after Golden Cockerel implemented a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. As her fellow litigants withdrew their claims over time, she chose to continue as the sole plaintiff. Despite receiving five separate settlement offers—some ranging up to $12,500 and others with each party bearing their own legal costs—she declined them all, confident in her case.

Refusing to Settle and Failing to Prove: Anti-Vaccine Case Ends in Indemnity Costs

However, Federal Court Justice Berna Collier found otherwise.

Her Honour ruled the claim “doomed to fail,” describing the pleadings as ambiguous and noting the applicant failed to call any witnesses, produce expert evidence, or identify how her employer’s actions constituted unlawful adverse action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). At the hearing, which was scheduled for two full days, the applicant instead closed her case within two minutes.

In a telling aside, Justice Collier noted she even advised the applicant to seek legal advice—perhaps even through a pro bono service—but the applicant declined, stating she was “just happy to go with the flow at the moment.”

Ultimately, the Court found the pleadings so broad as to be “meaningless,” failing to clearly link any adverse action to a proscribed reason under the law. As for the religious discrimination claim, there was no evidence the employer took action because of her beliefs. The claim simply didn’t satisfy the legal tests required by section 351 of the Fair Work Act.

In her ruling on indemnity costs, Justice Collier found the case had no real prospects of success from as early as April 2024 and that refusing to settle after multiple reasonable offers amounted to vexatious litigation. The employer was awarded costs on an indemnity basis from the date of a settlement offer made on 16 April 2024.

This case illustrates two crucial lessons for workers considering legal action following termination:

1. Be Specific and Lawful in Allegations: Claiming a dismissal was unfair or discriminatory without clearly identifying which workplace right was breached—and providing evidence of that breach—can be fatal to the case.

2. Know When to Settle: Courts expect parties to behave reasonably in litigation. Where a case is hopeless and generous offers are rejected, indemnity costs can be imposed, leaving litigants significantly out of pocket.

At 1800NOWINNOFEE, we specialise in employment disputes and general protections claims under the Fair Work Act. But we also understand when it’s time to tell you not to proceed. We don’t just fight to win—we fight smart, grounded in law, evidence, and strategy.

If you’ve been dismissed or treated unfairly at work, call us for an honest, expert assessment of your options.