Turner, W.R. v Acfold Investments

[1985] FCA 126

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTFALIA )

)

NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY	)	No, G288 of 1984
)

DIVISION GENERAL )

IN TKE IWTTER of the Trade Practices

A& 1974

BETWEEN :

WARREN ROBERT TURNER

First applicant

CULLANDS PTY. LIMITED

Second applicant

LAUREN MAVIS TURNER

Third applicant

ANI) :

ACFOLD INVESTIEENTS FTY. LIMITED

First respondent

R.B. FOSTEF: PTY. LIMITED

Second respondent

Judge making order: Beaumont, J.

Date order made:	4 April 1985.
Where made:	Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS TMT:

2 .

1. The second applicant provide security in the m x n t

of $2,500.00 for the costs of the first, respondent of the:.?

proceedings in the form of cash or otherwise to the

satisfaction of the Registrar.

2. The second applicant provide security in the amount

of $2,500.00 for the I cbsts of the second and third

respondents of these proceedings in the form of cash or

otherwise to the satisfaction of the Registrar.

3 . Further proceedings on the second applicant’s claim

against the respondents	be stayed until	such security	is
provided.

4. Reserve special liberty to the respondents to apply

f o r further securitp for	costs	on such notice as a judge of
the Court may direct.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTFLALIA )

)

hZW SOUTH WALES	REGISTRY	)	PIG.	G288 of 1984
)

GENERAL DIVISION )

IN THE MATTER of the Trade Fractices

Act 1974

EETWEEN :

WARREN ROBERT TURNER

First applicant

CLTLLANDS PTY. LIMITED

Second applicant

LAUREN IGVIS TURMER

Third applicant

BCFOLD INVESTMENTS FTY. LIMITED

First respondent

R.B. FOSTER PTY. LIMITED

Second respondent

W&RY LONDY

Third respondent

W: Beaumont. J.

W : 4 April 1385.

2.

The background to this application is described in the reasons for judgment dated 15 February 1985 when I

ordered that the second applicant provide security for costs

In the sum of $2,000.00 on an interim basis. AS

foreshadowed in those reasons, the respondents have	now
renewed their application for security.

On 1 April 1985, the final hearing of the

proceedings commenced. By consent, the proceedings were

heard together with a related matter, David Leslie Turner G

- Ors. v. Jenolan Investments Ptv. Limited (No. G165 of 1984).

The hearinq of both matters	has now proceeded into	its
fourth day.

Tile second and third respondents are now

represented separately from the first respondent. On the

face of things, this separate representation seems

reasonable enough sinc2 the parties are apparently at arms'

length: the Jecond and third respondents acted a3 the

agents of the first respondent in the transactions now

attacked. One consequence of this separate representation

is that the second and third respondents have sought security for their costs independently of the security for

costs sought by the f i r s t , respondent.

3

has emerged t o d a t e ( a n d the proceedings are complex), i t i s

n o t p o s s i b l e for lne t o t rea t the second appl icant as no more

than a nominal p l a i n t i f f . It was Eh5 o r ig ina l pu rchase r . a n d

i t s presence as a pa r ty t o t he p roceed ings i s , prima f a c i e

a t l eas t . e s s e n t i a l t o t h e g r a n t of t h e r e l i e f now sought .

A t the v e r y l e a s t , t h e s e c o n d a p p l i c a n t would be entiLled t o

be hea rd on the terms; If any, upon vhich the “ s e t t l e m e n t ”

made In August 1982 should be set a s ide . This i s not a case

where the only “ r e a l ” a p p l i c a n t s .are t h e f i r s t and t h l r d

a p p l i c a n t s ( c f . H a r p e r v. Briadne (No. 2 ) C13841 A.C.L.R.

835 a t p.840) .

For t h e reamns given In t h e e a r l i e r judg-~nent,

which, i n my view, remain appl icable to the p resen t

c i rcumstances. I propose to order that the second appl icant

p r o v i d e f u r t h e r s e c u r i t y . I th lnk that a sum of $2.500.00

is an a p p r o p r i a t e amount t o cover the costs of the

proceeding t o date.

I make the fo l lowing o rde r s :

1. Trle second app l i can t p rov ide s ecu r i ty i n t he amount

of $2.500.00 f o r th? c o s t s of t h e f i r s t respondent of these

proceeding3 in the form of cash otherwise or t o the

s a t i s f a c t i o n af t h e R e q i s t r a r .

4 .

of $2,500.00 for the costs of the second and third

respondents of these proceedtngs in the form of cash or

otherwise to the satisfaction of the Registrar.

3 . Further proceedings on the second applicant's claim

aqainst the respondents	be stayed until	such	security I s
provided.

4. Reserve special liberty to the respondents to apply

for further zecurity for costs on such notice as a judge of

the Court may direct.

1 certify that this and the 3 preceding

pages are a true copy of the reasons for

judgment herein of The Honowable

Mr Justice Beaumont.