Helal v McConnell Dowell Constructors

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.