Milcap Publishing Group A.B. v Coranto Corporaiton Pty Ltd

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA   )
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NG 377 of 1995
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

BETWEEN:             MILCAP PUBLISHING GROUP A. B.
  (A CORPORATION INCORPORATED
  UNDER THE LAWS OF SWEDEN)

First Applicant
JOHN LARK

Second Applicant

PETER COLLINS

Third Applicant

AND: CORANTO CORPORATION PTY LIMITED
(ACN 008 645 458)

First Respondent

LOUIS ROKAS

Second Respondent

KOULA ROKAS

Third Respondent

Coram:          Davies J
Date:              17 July 1995
Place:             Sydney

REASON FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application brought by the respondents for security for costs. I propose to adjourn the motion to a date to be fixed.

It is premature at this stage to decide with any certainty whether or not an order for security for costs ought to be made. The nature of the action and of the evidence that will be adduced has not yet become clear.

I should say, moreover, that two of the applicants are individuals who are residents of Australia. The action is brought, in so far as they are concerned, to recover damages as a result of the respondents' actions. The joinder of the Swedish company, Milcap as an applicant, was essential if injunctive relief was sought, but at the present time injunctive relief has become of less importance. As the matter now stands, this may turn out to be an action seeking damages for the second and third applicants. Milcap may have very little involvement in the proceedings once the issue of the ownership of the copyright in the subject material has been addressed.

I do not think that at the present time any estimate could be made as to the probable length of the hearing. The evidence which would permit anyone to judge that has not yet been prepared.

In all these circumstances, I think it is premature to consider making an order for security for costs. Even though Milcap is an overseas company, it is joined primarily because the applicants, Lark and Collins, are seeking damages against the respondents. The proceeding is primarily between persons in this country and respecting acts that occurred in this country.

I will not give relief at the present time, but I will not dismiss the motion. I will simply adjourn it to a date to be fixed so that, if it at some time in the future it becomes appropriate to renew it, the respondents will have leave to renew the application.

I certify that this and the 2 preceding pages
are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of
the Honourable Justice Davies.

Associate:

Date: 17 July 1995

Counsel for the applicants: R.J. Webb

Solicitors for the applicants: J. Pappas

Counsel for the respondents: M. Goldblatt

Solicitors for the respondents: Akehurst Friend & Allaway

Date of hearing: 17 July 1995

Date of judgment: 17 July 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Milcap Publishing Group A.B. and others versus Coranto Corporation Pty Ltd and others is a case before the Federal Court of Australia in the New South Wales District Registry. The applicants, Milcap Publishing Group A.B., John Lark, and Peter Collins, are suing the respondents, Coranto Corporation Pty Ltd, Louis Rokas, and Koula Rokas, for security for costs. The applicants are seeking an order for security for costs, which requires the respondents to provide a financial guarantee to cover potential costs if the applicants lose the case. The respondents have argued that such an order is not warranted in this case.
The primary legal issue before the court is whether an order for security for costs should be granted. The court must consider the nature of the proceedings, the likelihood of success of the applicants, and the potential financial burden on the respondents if such an order is made. The court must also consider the fact that two of the applicants are Australian residents and the action is primarily concerning acts that occurred in Australia.
The court found that it was premature to decide on an order for security for costs at this stage of the proceedings. The court noted that the nature of the action and the evidence that would be adduced had not yet become clear. The court also considered that two of the applicants were Australian residents seeking damages, and the action was primarily concerning acts that occurred in Australia. The court held that it was not appropriate to make an order for security for costs at this stage and adjourned the motion to a date to be fixed.
The court did not dismiss the motion outright but chose to adjourn it to a later date. This decision allows the respondents the opportunity to renew the application if the circumstances change in the future. The court's decision to adjourn the motion for security for costs reflects the need for a more complete understanding of the case before making such an order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established