Dodds Family Investments v Lane Industries

[1992] FCA 1079

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	) )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	) No. NG 281 of 1990

)

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN:DODDS FAMILY INVESTMENTS

Applicant

AND:LANE INDUSTRIES

Respondent

4 May 1992

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

There is before the Court a motion for further security for costs of the first respondent. The notice of motion is dated 30 April 1992 and was filed in Court pursuant to the leave of the

Judge on 1 May, 1992 that is last Friday. It seeks further

security for the costs of the first respondent against the applicants in the sum of $30,000. It also seeks a stay of the proceedings until the applicants furnish the security, if any,

ordered by the Court.

Today is the first day of the final hearing of this matter,

having been specially fixed for hearing on 4 February 1992.

There had been an earlier attempt to obtain a final hearing date

which proved abortive, hence the matter was restored to the list
and orders were made on 4 February.

There was an earlier motion for security for costs made by

the first respondent against the applicant. It was heard by

another Judge of this Court last year and an order was made for the provision of some $10,000 security. In a letter of 7 August 1991 from the first respondent's solicitors to the applicant's

solicitors, a request was made for the provision of further security from the applicants in the sum of $30,000 and there was some delay in replying to it, but it was not until 1 May, 1992 that the motion for security was filed.

The matter has been in the list a number of times for mention before Registrars and other Judges of the Court. However, this is the first occasion on which it has been

mentioned in Court that a motion for further security is sought.
Matters are allowed to be fixed for final hearing on the basis

that they are ready for final hearing and that there are not

outstanding questions such as motions for securities for costs.

Notwithstanding the early request in August 1991 for

further security, the failure of the first respondent to bring

the matter before the Court at an earlier time than late last

week is in itself sufficient to my mind to justify the dismissal of a motion for security of costs. In any event, I accept the correctness of the argument of counsel for the applicants that there is a further reason why security should not be ordered and

that is although notice of the request has been before the

applicants for some months the Court making the order may make it in the sum of $30,000 or a lesser sum and may make provision

for it to be paid or secured in any one of a number of ways.

I think it is right that the applicant should not have to assume that the Court will accede to the motion and therefore there is validity in the argument that there would have to be

some reasonable time allowed to the applicants to comply with any order for security which would have the effect of aborting this hearing which has been fixed for some three days,

notwithstanding its late start today due to other matters in the list. That seems to me to be a reason which makes the granting

of the motion for security virtually impossible, accordingly the
motion is refused and I dismiss the motion of 1 May 1992.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lockhart.

Associate

Dated: 4 May 1992

Counsel for the Applicant :	A.S. Martin
Solicitors for the Applicant	:Christopher C Freeman & Co.

Counsel for the Respondent : R.J. Webb

Solicitors for the Respondent:  Garland Hawthorn Brahe

Date of Hearing : 4 May 1992

Date of Judgment : 4 May 1992