FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Helal v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 1485 Citation: Helal v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 1485 Parties: LINDA HELAL v MCCONNELL DOWELL CONSTRUCTORS (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 002 929 017) File number: VID 632 of 2010 Judge: TRACEY J Date of judgment: 20 December 2011 Cases cited: Helal v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 1344 referred to Date of hearing: Heard on the papers Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 4 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Snaden Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Wood and Mr M Follett Solicitor for the Respondent: Ai Legal Group IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 632 of 2010 BETWEEN: LINDA HELAL Applicant AND: MCCONNELL DOWELL CONSTRUCTORS (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 002 929 017) Respondent JUDGE: TRACEY J DATE OF ORDER: 20 DECEMBER 2011 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant pay the respondent's costs, including reserved costs, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 632 of 2010 BETWEEN: LINDA HELAL Applicant AND: MCCONNELL DOWELL CONSTRUCTORS (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 002 929 017) Respondent JUDGE: TRACEY J DATE: 20 DECEMBER 2011 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 25 November 2011 I ordered that the application in this proceeding be dismissed: see Helal v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 1344. 2 When I handed down the judgment the parties were represented but no order for costs was sought. No order for costs was made. 3 By letter dated 12 December 2011 the solicitor for the respondent wrote to my Associate advising that an anticipatory application had been made during submissions by counsel appearing for the respondent. The solicitor advised that the applicant's solicitors did not oppose the making of an order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs, including reserved costs, to be taxed in default of agreement. The applicant's solicitor subsequently confirmed that the applicant did not oppose the making of such orders. 4 The orders sought should be made. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tracey. Associate: Dated: 20 December 2011