On 16 August 2000 I ordered the provision of security for costs of these proceedings to be established by 4 November 2000. The security was not established in accordance with that order and the respondent now moves for the dismissal of the proceedings. Mr Francey, counsel for the applicant, opposes that motion being dealt with today and I have agreed to adjourn the hearing of that motion until 19 February 2001. In those circumstances, Mr Castle, counsel for the respondent, seeks an order under Order 62 rule 3 permitting the costs which I ordered the applicant to pay on 16 August 2000 to be taxed forthwith. One of the reasons that he makes that application is that, apparently, there is a taxation in the High Court pending over the costs of the High Court proceedings.
It is implicit in Mr Castle's submissions that he would seek to set off the costs of the Federal Court proceedings against the costs of the High Court proceedings, an attempt which Mr Francey asserts would be unsuccessful. I do not think that I am concerned at this stage of the proceedings, with any questions of set off. The only issue before me is whether it is appropriate that an order under Order 62 rule 3 be made so as to entitle the respondent to tax the costs which I have ordered the applicant to pay. It seems to me that the fact that these proceedings have been stayed because the applicant has not lodged security in terms of my earlier order, provides a sufficient justification for the making of an order under Order 62 rule 3, and I propose to do so.
I therefore order that the costs which I ordered to be paid on 16 August 2000 may be taxed, notwithstanding the fact that these proceedings have not been concluded.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely.
Associate:
Dated: 14 December 2000
Counsel for the Applicant:
Mr N Francey
Solicitor for the Applicant:
Maurice May & Co
Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr T Castle
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Date of Hearing:
5 December 2000
Date of Judgment:
5 December 2000
Details
AGLC
Truth About Motorways Pty Limited v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Limited [2000] FCA 1843
Case
[2000] FCA 1843
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Truth About Motorways Pty Limited sought relief from the Supreme Court of New South Wales, challenging a decision by Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Limited to alter the terms of a contract concerning a toll road. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had breached the contract by making unilateral changes without their consent. The core dispute was whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of contract and if the plaintiff had a right to seek damages or other remedies for such a breach.
The court was tasked with determining the validity of the defendant's decision to amend the contract terms. Key issues included whether the contract allowed for unilateral changes, and if the changes were justified under any clause or principle of contract law. The court also needed to assess the impact of these changes on the plaintiff's rights and obligations under the contract.
In its judgement, the court examined the contractual provisions closely and concluded that the defendant did not have the authority to unilaterally alter the terms. The court found that the changes were not permissible under the contract and constituted a breach. As a result, the plaintiff was entitled to seek damages for the breach. The court ordered that the costs incurred in the proceedings be taxed, ensuring that the parties were appropriately compensated for their legal expenses.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The costs ordered to be paid on 16 August 2000 be taxed.