LN THE FEDERAL COURT oF ATISTVALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICY REGISTRY ~~ awe wey GENBRAL NIVISTON BETWEEN : No.G 144 of 1985 ANDRE_NGLASCO INVESTMENTS PEY. TLIMETED AND OTHERS Pesnogndent3 MINUTE OF ORDER JURGE: FOX J, DATE OF GRDER- 22 JUNF 1985 KHEPE MADE: Svdney. THE COURT ORDFPS THAT: 1 The appeliant provide cecurlty Tor the -s9pondent'= eosis of tne appeal in the cum of 470,000.00, 2. ine securitv he siven to the sariefacticn of the Reaistrar ttithin 14 «ava from 26 Jine P4Pb, frrlingd which the appeal 1s ta stand dismissed. ?. That tne date fixed fer the apperil (1° July 199%" fe waCcaTed, 4. A fuether date for the hearirg of the appeal he fire on Application to the Peaistyrar. The casre of rhe applicatian for security "er ceoeis he costs 32%) the appeal. Woke: Settlement and entry or orders 15 dealt with in Nyder 36 of the Federal Court Ruler, Se RR PERRET TO Ee pe eS eee newer erate te meee oe TN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AT-TRALIA NEW SOUTH WAL ¢ 4 DUSTHACT REGTSTPY GENEPAL DIVES LON COPAM: FOX TJ. Darn: The relevant which 1s in in a number 28 TUNE LORS AND: No.G 144 af 1985 Appellant TENOLAN INVESTHEMNTS PTY. LIMITED AND ITHERS SF ASONS FOR ITDCMEN'T EM TEMPORE very general Lerma ~ af other aurisdict more general ons. rane tf Aoes Pesponde nts ondents to an appeal, ™N enough established that in aqeneral 'he aimpecuniosity of the appellant is a ground for arderina cecurity for costs, rather than the contracv. There are factors of course. which bear on that situatzon, Tn the nresent case, Lam told that the present appellant was one of a number of applicants in the court below final f also seem un Lar) and that those applicants are no langer parties. from what J have been told that the principal claim, which was under 5.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, 15 one whitch related more directly to other applicants. The appellant is not in the position of proceeding to recover loss or damage which he did not incur himself directlv. There are a number of other factors qcoverning the matter but I am satisfied that an order should be made and the question 3s really as ta how much. The amount sought 1s $20,000. I am .told by Mr Naple for the appellant that in fact it is proposed to reduce the number of grounds of appeal substantially and that therefore the estimated time of the trial should be taken as about one and a half days. As Mr Bannon has pointed out, this 1s perhaps best taken, for practical purposes, 1s two days. The application below was, as T have said, unsuccessful There was however, a successful cross~-application on behalf of some or all of the present respondents and the amounts liable to be paid. if the present judgment stands, are very substantial Doing the best T can with the figures and trying to avo1d an order for security far costs which 1s unduly oppressive, ws the amount I think should be fixed at $10,000. The hearing cf the case has, IT understand, heen fixed for 10 July. This creates a problem jin terms of the time within which the securirtv 1s to be provided. The ordinary order is that the secrityv to be may ryravided or the appeal stand dismissed. What J wilt do 1s erder fthat the securitv be aiven to the satisfaction of the reqictrac within 14 «avs from today's date, failing which the appeal is to stand dismissed. One way or another it seems to me that the case will not be ready to proceed on 10 July, that being the date for which it 1s presently fixed, and I wili order that that date be vacated but that another date be fixed at a short time thereafter to be determined by the district registrar on application made to him. eee Co eet "7 z . ae (2) 1 aor ~ apa ve we san 4 UA, ¥e* a ont ' wat eat VT cee GOD" of ve i Seg OO +t wee FOOT | Vays Po lu, ReTER TR Oe PeP 7 ' 1 ._ a Vaya coy TH aE Dae \ ess reg FO bos" Jusuets wand 2 \ Vv " agsociete 5 _ ; ! a 1988 - Vaated wa Ju