Mondal v Transclean Facilities Pty Ltd and Anor (No.3)

In *Mondal v Transclean Facilities Pty Ltd and Anor (No.3)*, heard in the Federal Court of Australia, the applicant, Mr. Mondal, sought costs against the respondents, Transclean Facilities Pty Ltd and another, following the dismissal of his application. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr. Mondal's original application had been instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or whether an unreasonable act or omission on his part had caused the respondents to incur costs, thereby justifying a costs order.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the circumstances warranted the exercise of discretion to award costs against Mr. Mondal under the relevant provisions of the *Federal Court Rules 2011* (Cth) and the *Federal Court of Australia Act 1976* (Cth). Specifically, the Court had to determine if Mr. Mondal's conduct met the threshold for vexatious litigation or if any unreasonable act or omission by him had directly led to the respondents incurring costs that should be reimbursed.

Judge O'Sullivan considered the applicant's conduct in instituting and pursuing the proceedings. The Court found that the applicant's case lacked a reasonable prospect of success and that his actions in continuing the litigation, despite clear indications of its futility, constituted an unreasonable act or omission. Consequently, the Court determined that it was appropriate to make an order for costs against the applicant, reflecting the unnecessary expense incurred by the respondents due to the applicant's conduct. The Court ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding.