FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australian Lending Centre Pty Ltd (No 4) [2012] FCA 116 Citation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australian Lending Centre Pty Ltd (No 4) [2012] FCA 116 Parties: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v AUSTRALIAN LENDING CENTRE PTY LTD, SYDNEY LENDING CENTRE PTY LTD, AMR INVESTMENTS PTY LTD and CHRISTOPHER JOHN RIOTTO File number: NSD 606 of 2010 Judge: PERRAM J Date of judgment: 21 February 2012 Date of hearing: 21 February 2012 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 2 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr DL Cook Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Counsel for the Respondents: Mr JC Giles Solicitor for the Respondents: S Moran & Co IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 606 of 2010 BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN LENDING CENTRE PTY LTD First Respondent SYDNEY LENDING CENTRE PTY LTD Second Respondent AMR INVESTMENTS PTY LTD Third Respondent CHRISTOPHER JOHN RIOTTO Fourth Respondent JUDGE: PERRAM J DATE OF ORDER: 21 FEBRUARY 2012 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application to reopen the costs order made on 3 February 2012 be dismissed. 2. The matter be listed for directions on 6 March 2012 at 9:30am. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 606 of 2010 BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN LENDING CENTRE PTY LTD First Respondent SYDNEY LENDING CENTRE PTY LTD Second Respondent AMR INVESTMENTS PTY LTD Third Respondent CHRISTOPHER JOHN RIOTTO Fourth Respondent JUDGE: PERRAM J DATE: 21 FEBRUARY 2012 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 At the time that I delivered judgment in this matter on 3 February 2012, I ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs. This morning the defendants have applied to me to revoke that order and instead to make an order which apportions their liability to costs as between them in a way which is reflective of their participation in the trial. I accept that in the right circumstances it can be both appropriate and useful to seek to apportion costs in that way. 2 The conduct of this case, however, did not involve a simple breakdown between the various claims which were brought. For example, although Mr Riotto was only involved in the circumstances of the McIlwraith loan, a number of the witnesses who were involved in the determination of that issue were also involved in the determination of the positions of the Polimenis, Ms James, Mr Alptekin and Mr Hinds. I have in mind particularly the evidence given by Ms Amphone, Ms Naidoo and Ms Youssef. In those circumstances I do not think that it would be appropriate to seek to separate out the liabilities of the defendants and I therefore decline to vary my earlier order. The earlier order does not in terms say that each of the defendants is jointly and severely liable for the plaintiff's costs, but it was agreed before me that that is the effect of the order which has been made. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram. Associate: Dated: 21 February 2012