Montchel Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority

[1992] FCA 95

JUDGMENT NO.%.-.%&

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTWIA	)
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	) No. QG 121 of 1991
GENERAL DIVISIOq	1

BETWEEN:

MONTCHEL PTY. LTD.

APPLICANT

AJQ:

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT

F,-.- . ' 1 -

1 0 MAR 1992

FEDERAL COURl 9 J t

AUSTRALIA

MINUTES OF ORDERS

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	Drummond J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 February, 1992
WHERE MADE:	Brisbane
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
--	Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

1. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to these proceedings to be taxed.

NOTE -

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)	NO. QG 121 of 1991
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT '.	1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN:

MONTCHEL PTY. LTD.

APPLICANT

RESPONDENT

-:	Drummond J
Date:	7 February, 1992

Place: Brisbane

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These proceedings were commenced on 10 September, 1991 by the applicant, Montchel Pty. Ltd. . Interlocutory

proceedings brought by Montchel Pty. Ltd., designed to achieve relief from having to pay the charges challenged, failed. Directions were given on a number of occasions deslgned to ensure that the litigation was brought to trial expeditiously - it being litigation which raised a matter of very great public importance, namely, the validity of the landing charges imposed by the respondent, the Civil Aviation

Authority - as well, of course, as being of great importance to the applicant itself.

Directions were given by Pincus J on 2 December, 1991 which obliged the applicant company to take certain steps. Generally there was a failure on the part of the applicant to comply with those directions and, when the matter came before me on 16 December, 1991, further directions were given, in the face of those defaults, in order to take the matter to a stage where it could come to trial promptly.

One of the orders that Pincus J made on 2 December,

1991 was:

"That the proceedings be stayed until the applicant gives security for the respondent's costs in a form satisfactory to the Registrar in a sum of $40,000 provided that the Registrar may accept as sufficient security an undertaking in form satisfactory to him by the deponent Mr M.R.M. Broadbent, to be responsible for the respondent's costs in the sum of

$40,000. "

When the matter came back before me on 16 December, 1991, no such security had been provided and, on the application of the respondent, I made an order requiring the applicant to provide by 30 December, 1991 the securlty ordered by Pincus J to be provided, if it wished the matter to proceed.

I ordered that, if such security were not provided

I

by that date, the action should stand dismissed. Security has

not been provided and, in addition, Dr. Broadbent, the controlling director of the applicant company, has indicated that, if I were to exercise my discretion to resurrect this action, the applicant company would still not be prepared to risk further exposure to costs which would inevitably be involved if it were to press on with this action.

In general, while he does not want the action to be at an end, Dr. Broadbent's position is that the issues of the validity of the charges which Montchel Pty. Ltd. raised in its action are at the core of matters whlch are likely to be agitated in public inquiries associated with the collapse of Compass Airlines and Montchel Pty. Ltd. should not be required to lncur the expense of proving what those public inquiries will be examining.

No sufficient reason establishing the special
circumstances that must exist have been advanced to justify my

resurrecting this action, which, of course, stands dismissed

with my order of 16 December, 1991. In those circumstances, the only question for me to	determine now is whether the respondent authority should
succeed on its application for the costs of the action. Again, such an order is almost inevitable where proceedings come to an end. No reason has been advanced why I should not make the ordinary order, namely, that the applicant pay the

i

respondent's costs of and incidental to these proceedings to

be taxed. I therefore make such an order.

I certify that this and the three

preceding pages are a true copy
of the reasons for judgment
herein of the Honourable

Mr. Justice Drummond.

Associate:	H
Date:	7 February, 1992