-—r Ii THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALTA ) } NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY } No. G16 of 1985 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN : FAT-SEL PTY. LIMITED ' Applicant AND: BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER Judge making order: Heaumont, J. Date order made: 11 June 1985. Where made: Svdney THE COURT ORDERS THAT: l. Order that on or before 17 June 1985, the applicant provide security for the costs of the respondent of and incidental to these proceedings in the sum of $75,000.00 either in cash or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of the Registrar. 2. Order that unless security is provided as aforesaid, the proceedings be stayed. 3. Reserve liberty to the respondent to apply for ba further security in respect of costs incurred by it herearter. 4, Order that the costs of this application, including the costs of the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar (but excluding costs on the reference by the Deputy Registrar to the Court) be the respondent's costs in the proceedings. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. a a, IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALTA NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY No. Gio of 1985 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN : FAT-SEL PIY. LIMITED Applicant AND: BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED Respondent CORAM: Beaumont, J. DATED: 11 June 1985, REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (ON APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS) For the reasons then given, on 22 March 1985 I indicated that I proposed to order that the applicant provide security for the costs of the respondent. To ascertain the amount of the taxed costs of the respondent incurred to that date, I ordered that the Deputy Registrar tax those costs. The Deputy Registrar has now taxed at $68,884.75. In addition, the respondent has incurred further costs since 22 March 1985. In an affidavit sworn on 5 June een 2. 1985, Mr. R-W. White, the solicitor for the respondent has expressed the opinion that a sum of $36,000.00 is a fair estimate of solicitors' costs for the period from 22 March 1985 to the commencement of the trial at the end of this month. He has further estimated the fees of counsel in that period at $30,000.00. I think that the appropriate course is to order that security be provided for costs incurred to date only but that liberty be reserved to the respondent to apply for further security in respect of costs ancurred by it hereafter.-. In ordering security, I take into account the approach indicated by Fullagar, J. in Brundza v. Robbie & Co. 'No. 2) (1952) 88 C.L.R. 171 at 175: ",.. the Court does not set out to give a complete and certain indemnity to a respondent." In the circumstances, I think that security in the amount of $75,000.00 should be provided by the applicant in respect of the respondent's costs to date. Since the respondent has succeeded in the main in this application, I propose to order that its costs of this application be its costs in the principal proceedings. I make the following orders: « Cs 1 1. Order that on oc before 17 June 1985, the applicant | provide security for the costs of the respondent of and incidental to these proceedings in the sum of 375,000.00 either in cash or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of the Registrar. 1 2. Order that unless security is provided as I ra aforesaid, the proceedings be stayed. ' 3. Reserve liberty to the respondent to apply for further security in respect of costs incurred by it hereaftec.~ 4, Order that the costs of this application, including the costs of the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar (but excluding costs on the reference by the Deputy Registrar to the Court) be the respondent's costs in the proceedings. lea.uiy. atihis andthe 2 prece i pages ars a irue copy of the reasons for judgment herein of The Honourable Mir Justice Beaumant Dated || fone (ABS Associais sewer ee ~ tees Soe te wnt eee - ote tee - cose ~ one