Turner, W.R. v Acfold Investments Pty Ltd

Case [1985] FCA 30

I

l , '

I

!

..._..

BETWEEN:

~

WARREN

ROBERT

TURNER

~

~

F i r s t

a p p l i c a n t

C U L L k N D S

~

P T Y . L I M I T E D

S e c o n d a p p l i c a n t

LAUKEN MAVIS TURNER

_...

T h i r d a p p l i c a n t

A N D :

--.--I.--

ACFOLD -.--.I..-..-._..-._.-..-.-.-"

INVESTMENTS

I.._.._... L I M I T E D

_.._

PTY.

Eirst

r e s p o n d e n t

K . B .

FOSTER

........ ........ ........ ........ ...

PTY m

L I K I T E D

S e c o n d

r e s p o n d e n t

H A R R Y

LONDY

T h i r d

r e s p o n d e n t

p r o c e e d i n g s

~n

t h e

form

o f

c a s h .

s u c h

s e c c l r l t y

t o

he

p r o v i d e d

w i t h i n

14

d a y s

of

t h e

d a t e

h e r e o f

t h e

t o

s a t i s f a c t i o n o f

( h e

R e g i s t r a r .

a .

P u r t h e r

p r o c e e d i n g s

on

t h e

s e c o n d

a p p l i c a n t ' s

c l a l m

,

a g a i n s t

t h e

r e s p o r v d e n t s

b e

s t a y e d

until

such

secu r i ty

is

p r o v i d e d .

4.

.

L i b e r t y

r e s e r v e d

b e

a n y

p a r t y

t o

~

a p p l y

t o

g e n e r a l l y ,

on

three

days'

n o t i c e . .

=

d.

This

a p p l i c a t i o n starrd

o v e r

t o

1

A p r i l

1 9 2 5

a t

10.15 a.ni..

' I

G .

No

o r d e r

as t o

c o s t s

of

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n .

l

IN THE

.

E E D E R A L

.

COUNT

........ .....

OF

A U S T R A L I A

........ ........ ........ .

i

i4EW SOUTH

.......

WALES

.

R E G I S T R Y

.

)

No. G28E of 19F4.

i

D I V I S I O N

G E N E R A L

...

)

i

....

BETWEEN:

.._..

.......

WARREN

ROBERT

-.....-.. .

TURNER

.

F i r s t

a p p l i c a n t

C U L L A N D S

P T Y .

........ ........ ..

L I P i I T E D

i

S e c o n d

a p p l i c a n t

LAUREN MAUIS TURNER

........ .......

T h i r d

a p p l i c a n t

........ ..

&NU:

ACFOLD

I N V E S T M E N T S

........ ..

PTY.

L I M I T E D

........ ....

F i r s t

r e s p o n d e n t

......

R.H.

F O S T E R

P T Y .

........ .....

L I t i I T E f l

S e c o n d

r e s p o n d e n t

....

HARRY LDNIIY

.......

T h i r d

r e s p o n d e n t

........ ........

CORAM:

Beauniont

J m

Pfi'EB.:

15

F e b r u a r y

1'385.

l

35.52,

53,

53A,

55A and

58 of

t h e r r a ~ e - r m c f l c ~ s - ~ c d , ,

1974

( ' t h e

Ac t " ) .

tiam.z?es

under

5 . 8 2

a n d

f u r t h e r

o r d e r s

p u r s u a n t

t o

5 - 8 7

are

s o l i g h t

t o g e t h e r

w i t h

a

d e c l . a r a t i o n

t h a t

t h e

f i r s t

. a p p l ~ c s n t is

e n t i t l e d

.to

r e s c i n d

a

n

a g r e e m e n t

f o r

s a l e

d a t e d

31

August

1982

made

b e t w e e n

t h e

f i r s t

r e s p o n d e n t

as

v e n d o r

a n d

t h e

f i r s t

a p p l i c a n t

a s

p u r c h a s e r

for

t h e s a l e of

Lot 21

in a

m u l t i - s t o r e y

b u i l d i n g

known

as

' L a n g l e y

Park.'

11 Aerodrome

Road,

Maroochydore,

Qld.

a t

a

p r i c e

o f

~~130,000.00. T h e

a c c r u e d

o r

a s s o c i a t e d

j u r i s d i c t i o n

o f

t h e

C o u r t

is

s o u g h t

t o

b e

i n v o k e d

i n

r e s p e c t

o f

a

number

of

claims made

clnder

t h e

g e n e r a l

law.

These

claims

a r e

s a i d

t o

a r i s e

o u t

o f

t h e

s a m e

s a l e

t r a r m a c t i o n .

The

s t a t e m e n t '

o f

c l a i m

indicates

t h a t t h e d i s p u t e s

b e t w e e n

t h e

p a r t i e s

h a v e

h.3d

a l o n g

a n d

c o m p l i c a t e d

h i s t o r y ,

i n c l u d i n g

l i t i g a t i o n

between

t h e

p a r t i e s in

r e s p e c t

of

t h e same

t r a n s a c t i o n

i n

t h e

S u p r e m e

C o u r t

Q u e e n s l a n d .

o f

In

August

1984,

t h e

I

a p p l i c a n t s

a p p l i e d

t o

t h e

C o u r t

f o r

a n

o r d e r

r e s t r a in ing

t h e

f i r s t

r e s p o n d e n t

f r o @

p r o c e e d i n ?

w i t h

the

a c t i o n i n

t h e

Supreme

Cour t

of

Q u e e n s l a n d .

A

t

t he

s ame

time,

t h e f i r s t

r e s p o n d e n t

a p p l i e d

-to

t h e

C o u r t

f o r

a

s t a y

o f

these

p r o c e e d i n g s

p e n d i n g

t h e

d e t e r n l i n a t i o n

of

t h e

a c t i o n

In

t h e

Supreme

Cour t

o f

Queens land .

On

30 August

1984,

F O X ,

J =

a f t e r

h e a r i n g

a r g u n l e n t ,

d i s m i s s e d

b o t h

i n t e r l o c u t o r y

: ~ p p l i c s t i o n s .

B y

t h e i r

n o t i c e s

o f

m o t i o n

d a t e d

5

October

and

21.

November

1 9 8 4 ,

r e s p e c t i v e l y r

t h e r e s p o n d e n t s

now

seek.

o r d e r s

J.

t ha t

t he

s econd

app l i can t

g ive

5ecu r i t . y

f o r

t h e i r

c o s t 5

11-1

t hese

p roceedings .

The

second app l i can t

is

a

con\pany

c o n t r o l l e d b y

t h e

f i r s t

a p p l l c a n ~ .

The

third

applicargt

is

t h e

f i r s t

a p p l i c a n t ' s

s i s t e r .

I t i s

common

ground

t h a t

none

of

t h e

f i r s t , s e c o n d

or

t h i r d

a p p l i c a n t s

h a s

any

s u b s t a n t i a l

r e s o u r c e s .

I n d e e d ,

t h e

p r e s e n t

i n d i c a t i o n s

a r e

t h a t ,

u n l e s s

t h i s l i t i g a t i o n

is success fu l ,

e ach

of

t h e

a p p l i c a n t s

may

well

be

i n s o l v e n t .

A t any

r a t e ,

it is

c l e a r

t h a t

t h e

app l i ca r l t s

could

n o t

a t

t h i s s t age

fund

or seclApe c o s t s in

t h e

o r d e r

of

t h e amount

now claimed b y

the

respor ldents

a s

a p p r o p r i a t e

i n the

c i rcumstances

-

$45,500.00.

The

a p p l i c a n t s

s u b m i t

t h a t

i f

s e c u r i t y

f o r

c o s t s

is

ordered

on t h e

u s u a l

t e r m s ,

t h a t

i sF

t h a t

t h e

a c t i o n

is

s t ayed until

t h e

s e c u r i t y

is

g iven , t h e r e s u l t

will

be

t o

s t i f l e

t h e

l i t i g a t i o n

v i r t u a l l y

a t

i t s

incept ion.

Against

t h i s ,

t he

r e sponden t s

p o i n t

t o

t h e

l o n g

and

( f r o m

t h e i r

p o ~ n t of

v i e w )

u n s a t i s f a c t o r y

h i s t o r y

of

t he

ma t t e r

and

submit t h a t

it is unreasonab le

t ha t

t hey

s h o u l d

be

p u t t o

the

expense

of

defending

a

clainl wh ich

is doonled

t o f a i l

but

in

r e s p e c t of

wnich

t h e y have

no

prospec t

o f

rece iv ing

s a t i s f a c t i o n

f o r

any

order

for

c o s t s

they

might

recover .

blh11st t h e Court

has

an

abso lu t e

d i sc re t ion

in

the

n i a t t e r ,

t h e

p r e c a r i o u s

s t a t e

of

t h e

a p p l i c a n t s '

f i n a n c i . a l

I

I ' :

p o s l t i u n

s i lggests

t k z t ,

prima

f a c i e

l e a s z ,

a t

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t s

a r e

e n t i t l e d

t o

s e c u r i t y

f o r

soroe

of

t h e i r

cos t s .

Th i s

is

'not a case

where

t h e

lntpecuniosity of t h e

.>ppl ic .ants

can

be

a t t r ibuted

t o the

a l leged

nt isconduct

of

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t s

( c f .

L ! ~ c . ~ ~ .

v . :f-cx,k:g, (1933) 50 A.L.H.

328).

F u r t h e r ,

p r e s e n t

i n d i c a t i o n s

t h a t

a r e

, t n e

p r i n c i p a l

proceedings will

be s t rong ly

con te s t ed

on

t h e

f a c t s

and in

lega l

submiss ions .

S ince

it

is

i m p o s s i b l e :

a t

t h i s s t a g e s

t o p r e d i c t

t h e

outcome

of

t h e

l i t i g a t i o n ,

t h e

p r o b a b i l i t i e s

o f

success

or

f a i l u r e in

.the

c la ims

now

made a r e

n o t

a v a i l a b l e t o be

tal.en

i n t o accourtt

i n t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n .

In a l l

the

c i rcumstances ,

I

th ink .

t h a t

t h e

p r o p e r

course

is t o

o r d e r

- s e c u r i t y

noy

in

a

r e l a t i v e l y

nlodest

amount

of

82 ,000 .00

h i i t

t o

r e v i e w

t h e

s i t l i s t i o n

f r e q u e n t l y

a s

t h e

l i t i g a t i o n

p r o c e e d s .

I would

have

i n mind,

in

!

p a r t i c u l a r s

d i spens ing

wi th

the

u s u a l

i n t e r l o c u t o r y

s t e p s

and

d i r e c t i n g

t h a t

t h e

f i n a l

h e a r i n g

p r o c e e d

a t

a n

e a r l y

da t e .

I

unde r s t and

t ha t

.

the

pa r t i e s

will

be

ready

t o

p roceed

t o

a

f i n a l

h e a r i n g

on 1 Apri l 1985.

I would propose

t o review

the

quest ion

of

s e c u r i t y

f o r

c o s t s

t h e

a t

commencewent

of

t h e

f i n a l

h e a r i n q

and

t h e r e a f t e r

on

a

r e g u l a r

b a s i s .

S ince

no

par ty

was

e n t i r e l y

s u c c e s s f u l

in

t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n ,

'1

propose

t o

n1ak.e no order

for.

i t s c o s t s .

!

!

5.

I

make

t h e f o l l o w i n g

o r d e r s :

l.

The

s e c o n d

a p p l i c a n t

p r o v i d e

s e c u r i t y

in

- t h e

s a o u n t

o f

$2,000.00

f o r

t h e

c o s t s

o f

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t s

of

t h e s e

p r o c e e d i n g s

in

t h e

f o r m

c a s h p

o f

such

s e c u r i t y

t o

Le

p r o v i d e d

w i t h i n

14

d a y s

o f

t h e

d a t e

h e r e o f

t o

t h e

s a t ~ s f a c t i o n

of

t h e Heslstrar.

a.

E l J r t h e r

p r o c e e d i n g s

o n

t h e

s e c o n c l

a p p l i c a n t ' s

claim

a g a i n s t

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t s

b e

s t a y e d

u n t i l

S J C h

s e c u r i t y

is

p r o v i d e d .

4.

L i b e r t y

r e s e r v e d

b e

t o

arty

p a r t y

t o

a p p l y

g e n e r a l l y ,

o n

t h r e e

d a y s '

not ice .

5 .

T h i s

a p p l i c a t i o n

s t a n d

o v e r

t o

1

A p r i l 1985

a t

10 .15

a.nr..

i

I

G .

No

o r d e r

as

t o c o s t s o f

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n .

1 certify that this and the 4 preceding pages arc? a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of The Honourable

Mr Justice Beaumont.

/ @ T a s s o c i

ate

Dated

15- ,G /

e

V

ff3-

Details
AGLC
Turner, W.R. v Acfold Investments Pty Ltd [1985] FCA 30
Case
[1985] FCA 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Warren Robert Turner, Cullends Pty Ltd and Lauren Mavis Turner (the applicants) sought various orders in relation to a sale of property and an associated claim under general law. The respondents, R.H. Foster Pty Ltd, Harry Londy and Acfold Investments Pty Ltd, sought security for costs from the second applicant. The applicants argued that an order for security for costs would effectively stifle their litigation at its inception as they could not fund or secure costs to the amount claimed by the respondents. The respondents argued that they were entitled to security for some of their costs given the precarious state of the applicants' financial position and the long and unsatisfactory history of the matter. Beaumont J held that while the court had an absolute discretion in the matter, the precarious state of the applicants' financial position suggested that, prima facie at least, the respondents were entitled to security for some of their costs. However, since it was impossible at that stage to predict the outcome of the litigation, the probabilities of success or failure in the claims now made were not available to be taken into account in this application. The proper course was to order security now in a relatively modest amount of $2,000 to be reviewed frequently as the litigation proceeded. The second applicant was to provide security in the sum of $2,000 for the costs of the respondents in the form of cash. Further proceedings on the second applicant's claim against the respondents were to be stayed until such security was provided. Liberty was reserved to any party to apply generally, on three days' notice. The application was to stand over to 1 April 1985 at 10.15 am. No order was to be made as to costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.