Rabvila Pty Ltd v Reymour Investments Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 230

CATCHWORODS

COSTS - security - applicant a shell company (trustee) - relevance of financial position of beneficiaries - strong prima facie case for applicant - security refused.

Rabvila Pty. Limited v. Reymor Investments Pty. Limited & Ors.

Qld G106 of 1985

PINCUS J. BRISBANE 16.6.86

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G106 of 1985

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN :

AND:

AND:

AND:

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:

DATE OF ORDER:

WHERE MADE:

RABVILA PTY. LIMITED

Applicant REYMOR INVESTMENTS PTY. LIMITED First Respondent

JOHN CHARLES REYNOLDS.

Second Respondent IAN MOIR Third Respondent

HUNGERFORD, HANCOCK & OFFNER (a firm)

Fourth Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

PINCUS J. 16 JUNE 1986

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for security for costs be dismissed.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders 1s dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD Gi06 of 1985 GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: RABVILA PIY. LIMITED

Applicant AND: REYMOR INVESTMENTS PTY. LIMITED First Respondent

AND: JOHN CHARLES REYNOLDS

Second Respondent AND: IAN MOIR

Third Respondent AND: HUNGERFORD, HANCOCK & OFFNER (a firm)

Fourth Respondent

PINCUS J. 16 June 1986

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application for security for costs in a case in which the applicant alleges breaches of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The application is made by the respondents, but, for clarity, I shall give the parties the designations they

have in the principal proceedings.

The applicant purchased a restaurant business in 1982 from the first respondent, of whom the second and third

respondents are directors; the fourth respondent is a well-known firm of accountants, one of whose members acted as accountant for

the first respondent during the periods of time discussed below.