FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TS Lucas Pty Ltd v Anatinus Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 943
File number: QUD 87 of 2024 Judgment of: DERRINGTON J Date of judgment: 3 July 2024 Date of publication of reasons: 21 August 2024 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for security for costs – no dispute that security should be ordered – only dispute as to quantum Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited: Australian Battery Distributors Pty Ltd v Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1164
Canaipa Developments Pty Ltd v TLC Jones Pty Ltd [2021] QSC 237
General Trade Industries Pty Ltd (in liq) v AGL Energy Ltd [2020] FCA 1562
Global Access Limited v Educationdynamics, LLC [2010] 1 Qd R 525
Gumm v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCA 71
Jasmin Solar Pty Ltd v Trina Solar Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1018
Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Limited [2012] FCA 765
Procorp Civil Pty Ltd v Napoli Excavations and Contracting Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 147
Vale Belvedere Pty Ltd v BD Coal Pty Ltd [2011] 2 Qd R 285
Division: General Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance Number of paragraphs: 45 Date of hearing: 3 July 2024 Counsel for the Applicants: Ms S Philippou Solicitor for the Applicants: Stonegate Legal Counsel for the Respondents: Mr A Psaltis Solicitor for the Respondents: Buchanan Rees Dispute Lawyers ORDERS
QUD 87 of 2024 BETWEEN: TS LUCAS PTY LTD ACN 607 721 317 ATF DARK BLUE TRUST
First Applicant
TIMOTHY SIMON LUCAS
Second Applicant
AND: ANATINUS PTY LTD ACN 641 596 554 ATF THE JUNE EDMONDS-CLOWES FAMILY TRUST
First Respondent
RAYTRACER PTY LTD ACN 637 132 266
Second Respondent
MAXART TECHNOLOGY GROUP PTY LTD ACN 641 968 194 (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
DERRINGTON J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 JULY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to r 9.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the second applicant, Timothy Simon Lucas, be removed as a party to the proceedings.
2.The first applicant provide security for the respondents’ costs of the proceeding in the sum of $90,000, by payment of that amount into Court or in a form acceptable to a Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia, within 60 days of the date of these Orders.
3.The proceedings be stayed pending compliance with Order 2 above.
4.The applicants are to pay the respondents’ costs of the application to remove the second applicant as a party to the proceedings, together with any costs thrown away by the inclusion of the second applicant as a party to the proceedings.
5.The respondents’ costs of the application for security for costs filed 16 May 2024 be their costs in the cause.
6.The parties are to cause the proceedings to be listed for a further case management hearing within 7 days of payment of security for costs in compliance…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ts Lucas Pty Ltd v Anatinus Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] FCA 943
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the nature of the application and the submissions made by both parties. The applicants argued for a specific amount of security based on various factors, including the complexity and potential duration of the litigation. The respondents, while not disputing the necessity for security, contested the amount proposed by the applicants. The court assessed the submissions and the relevant legal principles governing security for costs under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
The court found that the applicants should provide security for the respondents’ costs, but the quantum proposed by the applicants was excessive. The court ordered that the applicants provide security for $90,000, payable into Court or in a form acceptable to a Registrar of the Federal Court within 60 days. The court also ordered the removal of Timothy Simon Lucas as a party to the proceedings, as he had no substantive interest in the matter. The proceedings were stayed pending compliance with the security order. Finally, the applicants were directed to pay the respondents’ costs of the application to remove the second applicant as a party and any costs thrown away due to the inclusion of the second applicant. The respondents’ costs of the application for security for costs were their costs in the cause, and the parties were to list the proceedings for a further case management hearing within 7 days of compliance with the security order.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to r 9.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the second applicant, Timothy Simon Lucas, be removed as a party to the proceedings.
2. The first applicant provide security for the respondents’ costs of the proceeding in the sum of $90,000, by payment of that amount into Court or in a form acceptable to a Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia, within 60 days of the date of these Orders.
3. The proceedings be stayed pending compliance with Order 2 above.
4. The applicants are to pay the respondents’ costs of the application to remove the second applicant as a party to the proceedings, together with any costs thrown away by the inclusion of the second applicant as a party to the proceedings.
5. The respondents’ costs of the application for security for costs filed 16 May 2024 be their costs in the cause.
6. The parties are to cause the proceedings to be listed for a further case management hearing within 7 days of payment of security for costs in compliance with Order 2 above.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Full text does not contain this section.