Lynjan Pty Ltd v Loreta Pty Ltd

[1990] FCA 534

JUDGMENT NO. ..5-??.% / . Y . i'

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION	1 '
l.!
P .
l

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)	I
I :
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )	No. NG 877 of 1989	I.:

1   , ,

GENERAL DIVISION	1	I	-.,
!
L..'

BETWEEN:  LYNJAN PTY. LIMITED

Applicant	I
i -

AND :  LORETU PTY. LIMITED & ORS.

i s

Respondent 4

23 August 1990

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

In this matter there have been two orders for security for costs to be provided by the applicant. The first order was complied with and the second order was made on 9 August 1990 whereby in essence the applicant was directed to provide further security in the sum of $10,000 bringing the total security to

$15,000. That security was to be provided by 21 August and it

respondent.

is comon ground that it has not been provided.

In the circumstances, counsel for the respondents seek an order that the proceeding be stayed until the security is

provided or further order. Mr Carroll, who appears for the

applicant does not consent to that course but offers nothing in

opposition to it. In my view the appropriate order to make in
the circumstances is the order sought by counsel for the

..

There is a further related matter which will no doubt be subsumed in the order for the stay and that is that there is

I

outstanding the question of access to documents produced on subpoena by Mr P.M. Axtons, trading as Axtons and Company, solicitors. The firm of solicitors has appeared on a previous occasion and they are not objecting to producing the documents covered by the subpoena to the court, but they do object to their being inspected by the parties. The subpoena in question was one issued by the registrar at the request of the solicitors for the applicant.

It has been made clear today by counsel for the respondent that although the applicant no longer seeks to call on the subpoena, the respondent wishes to have access to the documents. For some reason the firm of solicitors subpoenaed is not here this morning. It may be because they assumed that as the subpoena was not to be called on by the applicant, the whole question of the subpoena would be a dead issue; but it plainly

is not.

I think the best course to take in the matter is to stay the proceeding as asked by counsel for the respondent. That will carry with it the stay of any orders in relation to the subpoena to Axtons and Company which can be revived in due course if need be upon notice to Axtons and Company.

I think rather than the matter simply be stayed and it go out of the list as if it had been stood over generally, the 8 .

'

better course is to stay it but to direct that unless ajnotice

of discontinuance is filed the matter be listed for further	, .
directions at some date late in the year.
: I

Accordingly, the orders of the court are as follows: \..:

1.   That the proceeding be stayed until further order;

2.

That the subpoena directed to Peter McKay Axtons, trading	1 :
as Axtons and Company, solicitors, be adjourned generally;	I i

. . !

3.	That the matter be relisted for directions on Friday, 7	I
!
December next at 9.30 a.m. unless in the meantime the
matter has been restored to the list by any party or a
notice of discontinuance filed. The court also orders that	, ,
,-
I. I
any parties have liberty to restore the matter to the list	! . .
l
I

on t w o days notice.	1.	I
i
'..

As to costs of today's directions hearing, I order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of today.	1 -:
A further order of the court is that the extant order for discovery to be given by 24 August next is of course stayed	I -
! '
i L ,
1 ..
pursuant to the stay order to which I have already referked.

I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lockhart.

Associate c LK.5

Dated: 23 August 1990

Counsel for the Applicant	J. Carroll
Solicitors for the Applicant :	Conway MacCallum
Counsel for the Respondent	R.W. Hunt
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Manion McCosker
Date of Hearing	23 August 1990

Date of Judgment 23 August 1990

I	I
, I .
I..