Basetec Services Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - [2014] FCA 991

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Basetec Services Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 991

Citation: Basetec Services Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 991

Parties: BASETEC SERVICES PTY LTD ABN 30 086 798 361 v LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LTD ABN 98 000 893 667

File number: SAD 84 of 2014

Judge: BESANKO J

Date of judgment: 12 September 2014

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – security for costs – where company operates on “cash surplus” basis – where company did not disclose up-to-date financial information – where company did not disclose the person or persons who stand behind it – where company claims providing security would adversely affect the future conduct of its business – Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 56, Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335.

Held: Application granted. Security to be provided for period up to the proceeding being set down for trial.

Legislation: Building Work Contractors Act 1995 (SA)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 ss 21, 22
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 56
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 19.01

Cases cited: Ariss and Another v Express Interiors Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [1996] 2 VR 507
Beach Petroleum NL and Another v Johnson and Others (1992) 7 ACSR 203
Health Information Pharmacy Franchising Pty Ltd v Khoo [2010] FCA 438
Livingspring Pty Ltd v Kliger Partners (2008) 20 VR 377
Smart Company Pty Ltd v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1253
Soul Pattinson Telecommunications Pty Ltd v Subex Americas Inc [2009] FCA 651

Date of hearing: 8 August 2014

Place: Adelaide

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 54

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D Riggall

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms A Forsyth, Basetec Services Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms G Walker

Solicitor for the Respondent: Herbert Smith Freehills

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 84 of 2014

BETWEEN:
BASETEC SERVICES PTY LTD ABN 30 086 798 361
Applicant/Cross‑Respondent

AND:
LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LTD ABN 98 000 893 667
Respondent/Cross‑Claimant

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 SEPTEMBER 2014

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent’s interlocutory application dated 17 June 2014 be adjourned for further consideration to 19 September 2014 at 2.15 pm.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 84 of 2014

BETWEEN:
BASETEC SERVICES PTY LTD ABN 30 086 798 361
Applicant/Cross‑Respondent

AND:
LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LTD ABN 98 000 893 667
Respondent/Cross‑Claimant

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE:

12 SEPTEMBER 2014

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION

This is an application by the respondent for security for costs. The respondent relies on the powers given to this Court to make such an order in s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (“Federal Court Act”) (see…

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 Basetec Services Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors 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: [2014] FCA 991
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Basetec Services Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd, with the case being heard in a relevant Australian court. The dispute revolves around a complex contractual relationship and subsequent claims for damages and counterclaims. The nature of the dispute is multifaceted, involving allegations of breach of contract, negligence, and economic loss, among other issues. The quantum of damages sought by Leighton Contractors is substantial, necessitating a careful assessment of the merits and potential costs of the litigation.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of security for costs that Basetec Services should provide to Leighton Contractors. This decision was influenced by the complexity of the case, the significant amount of money at stake, and the potential for escalating costs as the litigation progresses. The court had to balance the interests of both parties, considering the risk of significant financial exposure if the case were to proceed to trial and the possibility of an unfavorable outcome for Leighton Contractors.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the numerous variables in the case and the substantial amount sought by Leighton Contractors. The court estimated that the costs up to the point where the case would be ready for trial would be approximately $300,000. This estimate was based on the current evidence and the potential for further discovery and development of the case. Consequently, the court ordered that Basetec Services provide security for costs in the amount of $300,000. The court also allowed the parties an opportunity to agree on the form of security, with the matter to be relisted for final orders if an agreement was reached or for the determination of the form of security if no agreement was made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I think that there are a number of variables in this case and the amount sought by the respondent is very significant. The variables I have in mind are the fact that, as the proceeding develops, a clearer picture of the apparent merits of the claim and cross‑claim may emerge, and a clearer picture of the costs likely to be incurred may emerge. Based on the evidence before me, my estimate of the respondent’s costs to a point where the proceeding is likely to be ready to be set down for trial is approximately $300,000. I will order that the applicant provide security in that amount.CONCLUSION The applicant should provide security for costs in the amount of $300,000. Neither party made submissions about the form of security and I will give the parties the opportunity to agree that matter. I will relist the application in seven days’ time for the making of orders if the matter has been agreed or for the determination of the form of security if there has been no agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:	Basetec Services Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 991
Parties:	BASETEC SERVICES PTY LTD ABN 30 086 798 361 v LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LTD ABN 98 000 893 667
File number:	SAD 84 of 2014
Judge:	BESANKO J
Date of judgment:	12 September 2014
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – security for costs – where company operates on “cash surplus” basis – where company did not disclose up-to-date financial information – where company did not disclose the person or persons who stand behind it – where company claims providing security would adversely affect the future conduct of its business – Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 56, Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335. Held: Application granted. Security to be provided for period up to the proceeding being set down for trial.
Legislation:	Building Work Contractors Act 1995 (SA) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 ss 21, 22 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 56 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 19.01
Cases cited:	Ariss and Another v Express Interiors Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [1996] 2 VR 507 Beach Petroleum NL and Another v Johnson and Others (1992) 7 ACSR 203 Health Information Pharmacy Franchising Pty Ltd v Khoo [2010] FCA 438 Livingspring Pty Ltd v Kliger Partners (2008) 20 VR 377 Smart Company Pty Ltd v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1253 Soul Pattinson Telecommunications Pty Ltd v Subex Americas Inc [2009] FCA 651
Date of hearing:	8 August 2014
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	54
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr D Riggall
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms A Forsyth, Basetec Services Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms G Walker
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Herbert Smith Freehills

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 84 of 2014

BETWEEN:	BASETEC SERVICES PTY LTD ABN 30 086 798 361 Applicant/Cross‑Respondent
AND:	LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LTD ABN 98 000 893 667 Respondent/Cross‑Claimant

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 SEPTEMBER 2014
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE:	12 SEPTEMBER 2014
PLACE:	ADELAIDE