Nolasco, A v Jenolan Investments Pty Ltd

[1985] FCA 326

I

I

i'

EPID :

,- '. .

more directly to 83ther applicants. The appellant is n o t ~n the position of proceedlnq to recover loss or damage which he did not incur himself directlv.

II There are a number of other factors oovern~ng the na%+er

aut; I am satisfied that an order should he made and the questlon

I S really a s to how much. m e amount sought 1s $zO,OOO. I ,an

.told by Mr Yaple for the appellant that in fact it is proposed to

I

reduce t'ne number of qrnunds of appeal substantially and chat therefore the estimated time of the trial should be taken as

about one and a half da~rs. A s Mr Bannon has pointed out., thls 1s

' perhaps best taken, f o r practical purposes, IS two days. Thc

applicatlon below vas, as I have sald, unsurcessful There was

however, a successful cross-application on behalf of some or all

of the present respondents and the amounts liable t o be pald. if

the present judument stands, are very suhstantial

avotd an order €or securtty for costs which 1s unduly oppress~ve,

the smmn: I think -,h?uld he f ixed at. $10.000.

@ne way or another -t seems to me that he case will not

be ready to prcceed '32 10 J u l y , that Seinq the date fnr which it

1 s presentlp flxed, and I vlll order that that date be vacated

but that another date b? f:xed at a short tlme thereafter to be

determlqed bp the di~jtrlct registrar cn app11cat.i-n made to him.

I . .