Solicitors:
Fraser Clancy (Plaintiff)
K & L Gates (First Defendant)
HWL Ebsworth (Third to Ninth Defendants)
File Number(s): 2015/369226
[2]
Judgment
On 23 September 2016, I delivered judgment ([2016] NSWSC 1351) ("Earlier Judgment") in respect of an application for security for costs made by the First Defendant, Sydney Fish Market Pty Limited ("SFM"), and the Third to Ninth Defendants in the proceedings who are directors of SFM ("Directors"). I held that an order for security for costs should not be made in favour of SFM, but that the Plaintiff, Felan's Fisheries Pty Limited ("Felan's") should be ordered to provide security for the Directors' costs of defending the proceedings, calculated on the basis set out in my judgment. I directed that the parties bring in agreed orders to give effect to the judgment within 14 days. On 30 September 2016, I made further directions as to the process to be adopted by Felan's and the Directors in respect of the form of orders. Felan's and the Directors were not able to agree aspects of the form of orders to be made and each made further submissions in that respect.
The parties agreed as to the amount of security for costs to be provided by Felan's to give effect to the Earlier Judgment, in the sum of $226,375, which my judgment contemplated would be provided on a staged basis.
The areas of difference between the parties were, first, the date on which the first tranche of security for costs is to be provided. The Directors proposed that the first tranche of security be provided within seven days of the date of the orders. Since those orders were submitted on 7 October 2016, the earliest date on which security could have been required on that basis was 14 October 2016. The Plaintiff proposed that security be provided by 21 October 2016. This raised a wholly pointless debate over a period of seven days, which would inevitably be, and was, rendered futile by the time which would be required to determine it. Since seven days from the date of delivery of this judgment and the making of the orders set out below would now be 19 October 2016, there is no benefit of any substance to be gained by ordering that the first tranche of security for costs be provided prior to 21 October 2016.
Second, the Directors sought security for costs in the first and second tranches each in the amount $70,000, and Felan's proposed that that amount of each tranche be lowered by $20,000 to $50,000. In support of that proposition, Felan's refers to Ms Kumar's evidence, in her affidavit dated 2 May 2016, which they submit indicated that approximately 13% of costs incurred by the Directors would relate to discovery, correspondence, directions hearings and conferences with Counsel; approximately 20%-25% would relate to the consideration and preparation of evidence; and approximately 62%-67% would relate to preparation for and attending the trial. Felan's reliance on that evidence has the difficulty that, first, as the Directors point out, costs will be incurred in respect of these categories throughout the process of preparation of the hearing and, second, additional costs will obviously have been incurred, by way of past recoverable costs, in the period since May 2016 when that affidavit was sworn.
The Directors resist the reduction in the amount of the first tranche of security for costs on the basis that past costs have already been incurred, as set out in Ms Kumar's affidavit read in support of the security for costs application; additional costs have been incurred by the Directors in respect of a further directions hearing on 30 September 2016 and in considering a lengthy affidavit of Mr Deans filed for Felan's in respect of the proceedings; further costs will be incurred, by way of preparation of the affidavits of most of the Directors, before the second tranche of security is due, on a date ten days before the Directors' evidence is due. It seems to me that these matters are sufficient to support a requirement that security for costs in the amount of $70,000 be provided in the first tranche, as sought by the Directors.
The Directors submit that the amount of $70,000 should be provided as the second tranche of security, since significant costs will be incurred in attendances prior to the point at which the third tranche of security is due to be provided, not less than six weeks prior to the date fixed for the hearing. It seems to me that the difference between the amount of $70,000 claimed by the Defendants in respect of the second tranche and the amount of $50,000 conceded by the Plaintiff in respect of the second tranche was not material in the circumstances and did not warrant the argument advanced by the parties in respect of it. Any estimate of the timing of the costs to be incurred necessarily has a degree of uncertainty, where, as the Directors point out, those costs will be spread over the period of the hearing. It seems to me that the sensible course, which the parties ought to have adopted for themselves, is to compromise the difference between their respective positions by ordering that $60,000 by way of security for costs be provided in the second tranche.
Third, the Directors proposed that Felan's pay their costs of an adjourned hearing of the security for costs application on 17 June 2016. There seems to me to be no basis for such an order, since I had already ordered that SFM pay those costs, where that adjournment was necessitated by deficiencies in the evidence led by SFM at that hearing, and was granted on terms that SFM pay the relevant costs. In my ex tempore judgment delivered on that date, I had noted that Counsel who appeared for SFM had indicated that SFM would seek that adjournment, even if the price of an adjournment was that SFM paid the costs thrown away. I had also observed that:
"In the result, it seems to me that the adjournment should be allowed, because fairness requires that SFM be allowed the opportunity to tender material that is important to its case, but also requires that Felan's be allowed the opportunity to respond. In the circumstances, SFM should be ordered to pay the costs thrown away of the adjournment, but on an ordinary basis."
The costs thrown away as a result of the adjournment of the application for security for costs on 17 June 2016 arose because SFM chose to seek to lead further evidence, to which Felan's needed to be given an opportunity to respond, and SFM rather than Felan's should bear the costs of that choice. The fact that Felan's has now been ordered to give security for the Directors' costs of the proceedings does not alter that position.
Accordingly, I make the following orders in the form proposed by the parties after resolving the relevant disputes as set out above:
The Plaintiff provide security for costs of the Third to Ninth Defendants in the sum of $226,375, as follows:
(a) $70,000 by 5pm on 21 October 2016;
(b) $60,000 not less than 10 days before the Third to Ninth Defendants' evidence is due to be served; and
(c) $96,375 not less than 42 days prior to the date fixed for hearing.
Each tranche of security ordered to be provided by bank guarantee to the Third to Ninth Defendants' solicitor or paid into Court.
The proceedings against the Third to Ninth Defendants be stayed if any tranche of security is not provided on or before the dates so ordered.
The Plaintiff pay the Third to Ninth Defendants' costs of the Third to Ninth Defendants' Interlocutory Process filed 2 May 2016, other than costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment of the hearing on 17 June 2016, as agreed or as assessed.
[3]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 19 April 2018