The Airlie Group L.P. v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed)

[1991] FCA 668

3UDGMENT No. ........ .... .... 6bf S '~-.k....

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G028 of 1991

1

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN:

.	-.
. . :.

THE AIRLIE GROUP L.P. and ORS.	~. . ,
F--.

Applicants

. ...,. .?

. .

-(Receiver & Manaaer Appointed) .. .. . ... -I ..

- _ -

and ORS.

Respondents

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	) No. G100 of 1991
GENERAL DIVISION	1

Respondents

BETWEEN:

DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT GROUP INC.

Applicant

m:

JOHN FAIRFAX GROUP PTY. LIMITED /Receiver and Manaser Appointdl and ORS.

l

j C O W : SHEPPARD J.

I : 22 OCTOBER 1991

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: On 7 June last I dealt with motions by the respondents in this matter for security for their costs. When

   I say in this matter I mean in the matters of Airlie and

   Drexel. I ordered that each of the applicants provide by way of security for each respondent's costs of the proceedings the sum of $100,000, but I said that the amounts so ordered were provisional and were not to be treated' as a finding that they represented the costs incurred by any respondent for any particular period or for any particular work. I then gave.

   directions to enable a Deputy Registrar of the Court to make a further report setting out a provisional estimate of the costs incurred or to be incurred by each respondent since the commencement of the litigation down to and including 31 July.

Directions were given requiring each respondent to material as it might wish to rely upon for the purposes of the furnish to the Deputy Registrar such evidence or other

report. The applicants were directed to furnish affidavits or other material upon whch they proposed to rely. The Deputy Registrar was directed to give any further directions he thought necessary including directions as to when and in what manner each party was to be heard. He was to circulate to the parties a draft report on or before 12 July and a final report on or before 26 July.

In his draft report dated 8 July 1991, the Deputy Registrar came to the conclusion that the amount to be awarded the first respondent should be $83,350, the second respondent $92,747.60, and the third respondent $103,250. There were then further submissions made to him after that report had been circulated. After those submissions had been received he further considered the matter, he having had, as he said, an informal discussion with the solicitors. One of the matters that was in contest apparently was the identity of the persons who had inspected documents produced on discovery. The Deputy Registrar had been inclined not to allow solicitorsr rates for this work but in his final report which is dated 7 August 1991 he was inclined to change his mind. As a consequence the amounts to which I have referred were increased, the first respondent up to $119,750, the second respondent up to $137,047.60, and the third respondent up to $140,850.

In written submissions and indeed in oral submissions
which the respondents have made from time to time they have

stressed that they have put on expert evidence and that this '

. ,.
. .

. ...

has not been challenged either in cross-examination or by

evidence called in opposition by the applicants.	.. . .-
. >
S. ,
.~...
Nevertheless, I think I should have substantial regard to the
. ,
approach to the matter which the Deputy Registrar has adopted.
He is an experienced taxing officer and he has examined the	. ,
1 :. ..
material put before him by each of the respondents with	X , ,.. .
. ,

substantial care.	But his report is not, of course,	.<,
. .

conclusive of.	what I should do.	It provides no more than	:	:	1	;
p; .i
.S	.	.
. ..
I Y ~
p ~.

e.

guidance as to the course that I should take.

Having considered the whole of the material which is before me, I have decided that I should increase each of the amounts which he has found. I have reached the conclusion that the amount to be awarded in respect of the first respondent by way of security for costs will be $130,000 and in respect of each of the other respondents the sum of $150,000. I make it clear that that is for work done in the litigation up to and including 31 July and does not cover work

t, ,,:

done thereafter.	'	j
[;; ..
t, v -
Accordingly, I order that each of the applicants in matter No. G28 of 1991 and the applicant in matter No. G100 of	{	:	;	.	/
l...
v.: ;. F,
,	:	;	r	,
1991 provide by way of security for the costs of the first
,.,. ;;1 ~.
...
, .~
respondent the sum of $130,000 and by way of security for the	1 :
costs of each of the second and third respondents the sum of	E':
$150,000. The amounts so ordered are in respect of work done
by the solicitors and other legal representatives of the	respondents up to and including 31 July last. There will be
leave reserved to the respondents to make such further
application or applications for security for costs as they may	E. ::
... ..,..,

be advised.	3	F	,	.G;
e-.
(Discussion ensued)

The applicants are to pay to the respondents their costs

of the motions f o r security f o r costs incurred after 7 June

last.

1 certify that this and Y'e p r ~ ~ $ Q

pzges at-$ a true copy Q? fha reasons for

judgment herein of T'ie t-lonourable

Associate