Mr J W J Stevenson of counsel instructed by Middletons Moore and Bevins appeared for the 10th respondent.

Mr P Santamaria of counsel instructed by Arthur Robinson and Hedderwicks appeared for the 14th to 28th respondents.

1. ORDERS that the respondents to the appeals have leave to tax the

costs the subject of the order of this Court on 11 July 1995

forthwith.

2. ORDERS that the costs the subject of the order of this Court on

11 July 1995 be paid forthwith.

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

LOCKHART, LINDGREN AND TAMBERLIN JJ The Court delivered judgment in this matter on 11 July 1995 when it dismissed the appeals from the judgments of Beaumont J of 10 February 1995 and 21 March 1995 and ordered that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeals.

2. The respondents to the appeals seek orders pursuant to O 62 r 3 (2) and (3) of the Federal Court Rules that such costs be taxed and paid forthwith notwithstanding that the principal proceeding has not concluded.

3. The appeals dealt with the discrete question of whether or not the appellants had alleged all of the elements necessary to establish a claim of tortious inducement of breach of contract. The learned primary Judge held that it was necessary that the appellants allege that the respondents knew or intended that their conduct would cause a breach of contract, but the appellants were not prepared to make that allegation, with the result that the relevant part of their pleading was struck out. For practical purposes the result of the dismissal by this Full Court of the appeals against the primary Judge's judgments is that the particular allegation of tortious inducement of breach of contract has ceased to be an issue in the case.

4. The proceeding has been set down for hearing commencing on 18 March 1996 and unless settled may subsist for a substantial time. The litigation is complex. It is unlikely that final judgment will be given until late 1996 or even later. The successful parties to the appeals before this Court will therefore, in the ordinary course of events, not recover their costs for a long time.

5. It would be wrong if the successful parties do not enjoy the fruits of their order for costs for such a long time. The parties entitled to the benefit of the order for costs which this Court has made in appeals from interlocutory orders should not be deprived of that benefit until the case has been finally disposed of.

6. In all the circumstances in our opinion the order for costs made by this Court on 11 July 1995 should be made on the basis that the costs are taxed and paid forthwith notwithstanding that the principal proceeding has not concluded.

7. Accordingly, the Court orders that the costs the subject of the order of this Court on 11 July 1995 be paid forthwith and that the respondents to the appeals have leave to tax such costs forthwith.