Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Railway Employment Co Pty Ltd

The case of Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union versus Railway Employment Co Pty Ltd was brought before the court under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on an application by the applicant to discontinue the proceeding, with an accompanying request that each party bear its own costs. This request was made on the basis that the proceedings had been instituted without reasonable cause and were vexatious. The applicant contended that the respondent had engaged in an unreasonable act or omission which had caused the applicant to incur costs.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the proceedings were instituted without reasonable cause and whether they were vexatious. The court also had to consider the relevance of the policy underpinning section 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and rule 26.12(7) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 to the exercise of the costs discretion. The court needed to determine whether the applicant's decision to discontinue the proceeding was justified, and if so, whether the costs should be borne by the parties themselves.

The court determined that the proceedings were indeed instituted without reasonable cause and were vexatious. The court found that the policy underpinning section 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and rule 26.12(7) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 was relevant to the exercise of the costs discretion. The court concluded that the applicant's decision to discontinue the proceeding was justified, and that the costs should be borne by the parties themselves. As such, the court granted the applicant leave to discontinue the proceeding on the basis that each party bear its own costs of the proceeding.

The final order of the court was that the applicant have leave to discontinue the proceeding on the basis that each party bear its own costs of the proceeding. This decision was in line with the policy underpinning section 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and rule 26.12(7) of the Federal Court Rules 2011, and was a just and reasonable outcome given the circumstances of the case.