FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Telstra Corp Ltd v First Netcom Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 309
INJUNCTIONS – undertaking as to damages – security for undertaking – Mareva injunction pending giving of security
COSTS – security
INSOLVENCY – effort to prove solvency of corporation inconsistent with argument that security should not be granted because corporation’s inability to pay will abort the case
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 051 775 556) v FIRST NETCOM PTY LIMITED (ACN 067 043 145)
NG 483 OF 1997
EINFELD J
17 MARCH 2000SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 483 OF 1997
BETWEEN:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 051 775 556)
ApplicantAND:
FIRST NETCOM PTY LIMITED
(ACN 067 043 145)
RespondentJUDGE:
EINFELD J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 MARCH 2000
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.the respondent provide security for its undertaking as to damages given on 26 June 1997 in a form and manner satisfactory to a Registrar of the Court in the sum of $200,000 by not later than 4pm on Friday 14 April 2000, and in the further sum of $200,000 by not later than 4pm on Friday 5 May 2000
2.pending the security of the first sum of $200,000, the respondent not deal with its funds and other assets in any way other than in the ordinary course of business
3.the respondent provide security for the applicant’s costs on the cross claim in the further sum of $50,000 in a form and manner satisfactory to a Registrar of the Court by not later than 4pm on Friday 14 April 2000
4.the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of its motion of 6 August 1999 which may be taxed forthwith and are to be paid promptly after taxation
Note: Settlement and entry of orders are dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 483 OF 1997
BETWEEN:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 051 775 556)
ApplicantAND:
FIRST NETCOM PTY LIMITED
(ACN 067 043 145)
Respondent
JUDGE:
EINFELD J
DATE:
17 MARCH 2000
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Previous judgments have outlined the facts of this matter. On 26 June 1997 First Netcom gave an undertaking to pay any damage suffered by Telstra in connection with and as a result of an interlocutory injunction then sought by and later granted to First Netcom to compel Telstra to continue to supply telecommunications services to First Netcom’s customers even though First Netcom was not paying for the services. The injunction, made on 16 July 1997, was dissolved on 2 September 1997 and Telstra claims to have suffered damage in the period it continued to supply the services. On 12 March 1998 an expert accountant Roger Amos was appointed by the Court to produce a report on the losses sustained. For a variety of reasons Mr Amos has not yet been able to report, so by motion of 6 August 1999 Telstra sought an order, pending…
Continue reading Telstra Corp Ltd v First Netcom Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Telstra Corp Ltd v First Netcom Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 309
- Case
- [2000] FCA 309
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the respondent should be required to provide security for its undertaking as to damages, whether restrictions should be placed on the respondent’s ability to deal with its funds and assets, and whether the respondent should be ordered to provide security for the applicant’s costs on a cross-claim. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate amount of security and whether the respondent should pay the applicant’s costs associated with a previous motion.
In its decision, the court ruled that the respondent should provide security for damages in two installments, totaling $400,000, and that this security should be provided by specific dates. The court also imposed restrictions on the respondent’s ability to deal with its assets pending the provision of the first installment of security. Furthermore, the court ordered the respondent to provide security for the applicant’s costs on the cross-claim in the amount of $50,000 and to pay the applicant’s costs associated with a prior motion. These orders were made under the Federal Court Rules to ensure that the applicant would be compensated appropriately for the claims made.
The court’s final orders mandated that First Netcom provide security for damages in two installments of $200,000 each, provide additional security for the applicant’s costs on the cross-claim, and pay the applicant’s costs of a previous motion. These orders were intended to secure the applicant’s claims and ensure that the respondent could not dissipate its assets while the case was ongoing.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. the respondent provide security for its undertaking as to damages given on 26 June 1997 in a form and manner satisfactory to a Registrar of the Court in the sum of $200,000 by not later than 4pm on Friday 14 April 2000, and in the further sum of $200,000 by not later than 4pm on Friday 5 May 2000
2. pending the security of the first sum of $200,000, the respondent not deal with its funds and other assets in any way other than in the ordinary course of business
3. the respondent provide security for the applicant’s costs on the cross claim in the further sum of $50,000 in a form and manner satisfactory to a Registrar of the Court by not later than 4pm on Friday 14 April 2000
4. the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of its motion of 6 August 1999 which may be taxed forthwith and are to be paid promptly after taxation
Note: Settlement and entry of orders are dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: EINFELD J
Full text does not contain this section.