Hopeshore Pty Limited v Melroad Equipment Pty Limited [2004] FCA 1445

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hopeshore Pty Limited v Melroad Equipment Pty Limited [2004] FCA 1445

PROCEDURE – security for costs – discretion – conduct of the respondent – other factors relevant to exercise of discretion

PRACTICE – case management practices – nature of mediation – duty of legal practitioners to co-operate with the Court Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 56 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700 cited Deangrove Pty Ltd v Buckby [2002] FCA 1544 cited Gartner v Ernst & Young (No 3) [2003] FCA 1437 cited Sali v SPC Ltd (1993) 116 ALR 625 cited State of Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Limited (1997) 189 CLR 146 considered The Airtourer Co‑operative Limited v Millicer Aircraft Industries Pty Limited [2004] FCA 1400 referred to HOPESHORE PTY LIMITED v MELROAD EQUIPMENT PTY LIMITED N 1664 of 2003 BRANSON J 9 NOVEMBER 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1664 of 2003

BETWEEN: HOPESHORE PTY LIMITED

APPLICANT

AND: MELROAD EQUIPMENT PTY LIMITED

RESPONDENT

MELROAD EQUIPMENT PTY LIMITED

CROSS‑CLAIMANT

HOPESHORE PTY LIMITED

CROSS‑RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 9 NOVEMBER 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The motion be dismissed. 2. The respondent pay the applicant's costs of the motion. 3. The questions of whether the costs referred to in par 2 should be: (a) paid on an indemnity basis; and (b) paid forthwith; be reserved.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1664 of 2003

BETWEEN: HOPESHORE PTY LIMITED

APPLICANT

AND: MELROAD EQUIPMENT PTY LIMITED