Legal Research
Cases
Mondal v Transclean Facilities Pty Ltd

Mondal v Transclean Facilities Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 28 May 2020 42 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MONDAL v TRANSCLEAN FACILITIES PTY LTD & ANOR

[2020] FCCA 1334

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair Work – interlocutory application for summary dismissal – summary judgment – interlocutory application to strike out statement of claim – interlocutory application for discovery – procedural orders – no order as to costs.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.357, 544, 545, 550, 570, 793

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss.3, 17A, 43, 45

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss.31A

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.07, 13.10

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr.16.02, 16.21

Cases cited:

Kalayzich v Santa Sabina College & Anor [2020] FCCA 11

Fair Work Ombudsman v Grouped Property Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 551
Fair Work Ombudsman v Hu [2019] FCAFC 133
Zaghloul v Woodside Energy Limited (No. 7) [2019] FCA 818
Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia (2010) CLR 118

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Railtrain Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1740

Abrahams v Qantas Airways Limited (No.2) (2007) 210 FLR 314

Australian Building & Construction Commissioner v CFMEU & Ors (No.5)[2018] FCCA 1100

Applicant:

SUBRATA KUMAR MONDAL

First Respondent:

TRANSCLEAN FACILITIES PTY LTD (ACN 141 630 355)

Second Respondent:

SHAYAN DATTA

File Number:

MLG 744 of 2019

Judgment of:

Judge O'Sullivan

Hearing date:

On the papers

Date of Last Submission:

11 May 2020

Delivered at:

Melbourne (by telephone)

Delivered on:

28 May 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Hooper

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Rangi Lawyers

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr Catlin

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Stephen Peter Byrne

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

Mr Misso

Solicitors for the Second Respondent:

Neesham White Gentle

ORDERS

The statement of claim filed 12 December 2019 be struck out.
The applicant file and serve an amended statement of claim on or before 30 June 2020.
If the applicant files and serves an amended statement of claim, the first and second respondents file and serve an amended defence on or before 4 August 2020.
The application in a case filed 16 March 2020 and the application in a case filed 26 April 2020 be otherwise dismissed.
The proceedings be adjourned 20 August 2020 commencing at 10:00 am at the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Melbourne.
There be no order as to costs.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT Melbourne

MLG 744 of 2019

Subrata Kumar Mondal

Applicant

And

Transclean Facilities Pty Ltd
(ACN 141 630 355)

First Respondent

Shayan Datta

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

We are in the midst of a global pandemic caused by the spread of COVID-19.
The onset of the crisis caused by COVID-19 has been a kairotic moment for the whole community. As a result of State and Commonwealth government health directives steps are being taken to enforce what has been referred to as “social distancing”. To help with maintaining public health, the attention to regular cleaning of public spaces and high touch surfaces in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mondal v Transclean Facilities Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] FCCA 1334
Decision Date: 28 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mondal (the applicant) brought proceedings against Transclean Facilities Pty Ltd (the respondent) in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant sought various interlocutory orders, including summary dismissal of the proceedings, summary judgment, and an order to strike out the statement of claim. The respondent also sought an order for discovery.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's claim should be summarily dismissed or struck out for failing to disclose a cause of action, or alternatively, whether the respondent was entitled to an order for discovery. The Court was required to consider the threshold for summary dismissal and striking out a statement of claim, and the principles governing the grant of discovery in interlocutory proceedings.

O'Sullivan J considered the applicant's arguments for summary dismissal and striking out the statement of claim, assessing whether the pleadings were so manifestly weak or obviously without foundation that they ought to be struck out. The Court also considered the respondent's application for discovery, evaluating whether the requested discovery was necessary for the fair conduct of the proceedings and proportionate to the issues in dispute. The Court ultimately made no order as to costs.

Orders