Turner, W.R. v Acfold Investments Pty Ltd

[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-