Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (No 5)

In the case of Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (No 5), the applicants, Mr and Mrs Hopkins, sought security for the costs of cross-respondents against AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, a respondent to a substantial damages claim brought by the applicants on behalf of group members in a representative proceeding. The applicants alleged that AECOM was liable under the Corporations Act for a contravention of certain provisions in relation to traffic forecasting methodology and traffic forecasts included in a Product Disclosure Statement. The court was required to decide whether security for costs should be ordered given AECOM's substantial means and the slight risk of AECOM not being able to satisfy a judgment and pay any costs ordered. The court considered the impact of the dismissal of other related proceedings on AECOM's financial position and concluded that the Sponsor Parties' criticisms of Mr Chapple's evidence were unconvincing. The court dismissed the interlocutory applications seeking security for the costs of the cross-respondents and listed the proceeding for further submissions as to costs. The orders were entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.