Reches Pty Ltd v Tadiran Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Reches Pty Ltd v Tadiran Ltd [2000] FCA 925

RECHES PTY LIMITED v TADIRAN LIMITED

NG 606 OF 1996

LEHANE J
4 JULY 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 606 OF 1996

BETWEEN:	RECHES PTY LIMITED APPLICANT
AND:	TADIRAN LIMITED RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	LEHANE J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 JULY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondent be granted the relief sought in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 of its notice of motion filed on 13 June 2000.

2.The Registrar commence a proceeding against each of Isaac Reches and Yael Reches for punishment of the contempt of Court which prima facie they appear to have committed by breaching their undertaking to the Court of 16 July 2000.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 606 OF 1996

BETWEEN:	RECHES PTY LIMITED APPLICANT
AND:	TADIRAN LIMITED RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	LEHANE J
DATE:	4 JULY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The respondent in the proceeding seeks, by notice of motion filed on 13 June 2000, an order that part of the costs payable by the applicant to it pursuant to an order which I made on 12 August 1999 be assessed as a gross sum, and an order directing payment to the respondent by the Registrar of a sum of $25,000 lodged by the applicant in accordance with an order requiring the provision of security for costs.  The respondent did not appear, but the evidence satisfies me that the notice was served and that the respondent had ample notice of the hearing.

2. The trial of the proceeding occupied four days in December 1998 and February 1999.  Both parties were represented by senior and junior counsel.  There is no reason to take any view other than that it was reasonable that the parties be represented at that level.  The respondent was successful in the proceeding: the application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.  To the extent that those costs were incurred after 8.30 am on 18 December 1998, they were to be paid on the indemnity basis.  The amount for which the respondent now seeks a gross sum order is the sum of the disbursements which it incurred after 8.30 am on 18 December 1998: that is, during the period covered by the order for indemnity.

3. Evidence before me on the motion establishes that the fees charged by senior and junior counsel appearing for the respondent during that period and fees paid by the respondent for the transcript of the trial amount to a sum substantially in excess of $25,000, somewhat more than $30,000.  I see nothing unreasonable in the amount of the fees charged by either senior or junior counsel, and I have no serious doubt that those fees would be recoverable virtually in full upon taxation on the…