Madgwick v Kelly

INTRODUCTION 103 This is an application for leave to appeal and, provisionally upon the grant of leave, an appeal, from a judgment of a single Judge of the court given on 17 December 2012, wherein his Honour refused the applications of the then respondents in three proceedings ("the respondents") for the provision of security for costs by the applicants in those proceedings ("the applicants"). Each proceeding was a representative one under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ("the Federal Court Act"). The proceedings arose out of investments in managed investment schemes ("the schemes") involving long-term forestry plantations associated with Willmott Forests Ltd and Bioforest Ltd ("the scheme companies"), both in liquidation at the time of the applications before the primary Judge. 104 One proceeding was brought against the scheme companies and against five individuals who were directors of them ("the directors"). It was brought on behalf of the applicants in that proceeding themselves and on behalf of all persons who acquired an interest in the schemes and who suffered loss and damage by reason of the conduct of the respondents in that proceeding. A second proceeding was brought against Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd ("CBA") on behalf of the applicant in that proceeding himself and on behalf of all persons who acquired an interest in the schemes, who entered a loan agreement with CBA to finance the acquisition of the interest, and who suffered loss and damage by reason of the conduct of CBA. A third proceeding was brought against MIS Funding No 1 Pty Ltd ("MIS"), a wholly owned subsidiary of CBA, on behalf of the applicants in that proceeding themselves and on behalf of all persons who acquired an interest in the schemes, who entered a loan agreement with MIS to finance the acquisition of the interest, and who suffered loss and damage by reason of the conduct of MIS. I shall refer to CBA and MIS together as "the lenders".

THE REASONS OF THE PRIMARY JUDGE 105 Having referred to the principles which govern the disposition of an application for security for costs (none of which, as such, is presently contentious), the primary Judge turned to the application of those principles to the facts of the cases before him. His Honour dealt first with three matters which were not in issue, and they do not require further mention here. He then considered whether there was reason to believe that the applicants would be unable to pay the respondents' costs if so ordered. The evidence was that the costs of the scheme companies would be in the range of $580,000 to $2.4m, that the costs of the directors would be about $2m and that the costs of the two lenders would be about $4.8m. Having considered the assets of the applicants, his Honour held that they would not be able to meet a costs order in favour of the respondents. On the present application, there was no challenge to that conclusion. 106 The primary Judge linked the consideration just referred to with a second one, namely, whether the applicants were impecunious. His Honour held that, in the sense that the applicants would be unable to meet a costs order in favour of the respondents, they were "relevantly impecunious". This conclusion invoked the "traditional rule" that a natural person (such as each of the applicants) would not, by reason of impecuniosity alone, be barred from continuing with a proceeding by the grant of an order for security for costs: Cowell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34, 38. Having recognised that an exception to that rule was a situation in which "an impecunious party sues for the benefit of somebody else", his Honour mentioned a number of authorities on the subject of the traditional rule and held that the general words of s 56 of the Federal Court Act (see para 142 below) did not abrogate that rule. His Honour's conclusion in this regard is sufficiently encapsulated in the words of Branson J in The Airtourer Co-operative Ltd v Millicer Aircraft Industries Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1400 at [22], which his Honour quoted: … I consider that I am bound both by authority and principle to act on the basis that subs 56(1) of the Federal Court Act is not intended to empower the Court to act in disregard of the principle that poverty of itself is no ground for ordering a litigant to provide security for costs. The primary Judge then turned to a consideration of the strength and bona fides of the applicants' claims. His Honour's conclusion, which has not been challenged on the present applications, was that the claims were "prima facie regular on the face of the pleadings and disclose various arguable causes of action". His Honour proceeded "on the basis that the proceedings have a reasonable prospect of success". 107 The next point which his Honour considered was whether the proceedings were essentially defensive in nature. This was a live issue in the case because the lenders had brought proceedings against some of the persons who had acquired interests in the schemes and who were in default in repayment of their loans. His Honour concluded that it was likely that, absent the present proceedings, the group members could expect recovery proceedings to be commenced against them if they failed to meet their loan repayments, and that the two proceedings brought against the lenders were, "in substance, to a significant degree defensive". His Honour also took the view that, to the extent that those proceedings were "interwoven" with the other proceeding (against the scheme companies and the directors), the latter also had "some defensive elements for those group members with loans". 108 The primary Judge next held, as was uncontroversial on the present applications, that the applicants had not been deliberately selected as "persons of straw" in order to immunise from costs orders other group members of substantial means. His Honour held that the applicants themselves had, "[b]y community standards … significant assets and by taking on the role of representative party each has placed at risk assets which must be of substantial importance to them." They were not put forward as applicants because they had nothing to lose. 109 The next consideration which the primary Judge took into account was one which lay at the centre of the controversies on the applications for leave to appeal. His Honour said: It has long been established that where a nominal plaintiff sues for the benefit of another the impecuniosity of the plaintiff is no bar to an order for security. This exception was referred to by Bowen LJ in Cowell v Taylor as necessary to deal with the risk of abuse. This sensible approach has been applied in numerous non-representative proceedings. For example, in [Bell Wholesale Co Ltd v Gates Export Corporation (1984) 2 FCR 1] the Full Court held at 4: In our opinion a court is not justified in declining to order security on the ground that to do so will frustrate the litigation unless a company in the position of the appellant here establishes that those who stand behind it and who will benefit from the litigation if it is successful (whether they be shareholders or creditors or, as in this case, beneficiaries under a trust) are also without means. See also [KP Cable Investments Pty Ltd v Meltglow Pty Ltd (1995) 56 FCR 189] at 197 per Beazley J; [Bryan E Fencott & Associates Pty Ltd v Eretta Pty Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 497] at 513 per French J. The primary Judge noted, as was accepted by the respondents, that the applicants were not "nominal parties" in the sense referred to in Cowell v Taylor. They advanced their own claims, and also brought proceedings in a representative capacity. They did not bring the individual damages claims made by the group members, but brought claims on their behalf by seeking findings on the common questions of fact or law. His Honour continued that, once findings on the common questions were made, if a group member were to recover damages, he or she would then have to advance and succeed on the issues of fact and law which were relevant to his or her individual claim. 110 The question which the primary Judge had to address was whether, in circumstances where the applicants had not been specially put forward because of their impecuniosity and had much to lose personally from the making of an adverse costs order, the fact that they were, as representative applicants under Pt IVA of the Federal Court Act, in one sense suing for the benefit of others should stand in the way of them submitting that an order for security would stifle the litigation unless they took the further step of establishing that those for whose benefit they were suing were also unable to provide the security sought by the respondents. The applicants submitted not, consistently with the protection from an adverse costs order given to group members under s 43(1A) of the Federal Court Act, which reads: In a representative proceeding commenced under Part IVA or a proceeding of a representative character commenced under any other Act that authorises the commencement of a proceeding of that character, the Court or Judge may not award costs against a person on whose behalf the proceeding has been commenced (other than a party to the proceeding who is representing such a person) except as authorised by: (a) in the case of a representative proceeding commenced under Part IVA - section 33Q or 33R; or (b) in the case of a proceeding of a representative character commenced under another Act - any provision in that Act. The respondents, by contrast, pressed for an affirmative answer to be given to the question, relying upon the judgment of the Full Court in Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (2003) 130 FCR 317. 111 The primary Judge said: Bray dealt with an application for security for costs in a class action brought by businesses and consumers in relation to cartel conduct in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The Full Court upheld an appeal against an interlocutory judgment by Merkel J in which he refused an application for security for costs. Bray establishes that where an impecunious applicant is bringing Part IVA proceedings, the fact that he or she is doing so for the benefit of represented persons may be a significant consideration in favour of granting security. It provides that the financial circumstances of the group members are relevant to the determination of an application for security. It also indicates that it is not necessary for the respondent to demonstrate the additional circumstance that the applicant has been deliberately selected in order to shield group members of substantial means for whose benefit the proceeding is also being brought. It was in the light of this understanding of Bray that his Honour turned to consider the characteristics of the group members. 112 In total, there were 3,191 persons who acquired interests in the schemes. While his Honour was prepared to infer that many of them had suffered losses from the schemes, he noted that it was unknown how many of them claimed that their losses were caused by the alleged conduct of the respondents. That meant that it was not possible to make an accurate estimate of the number of group members in the proceedings, and his Honour considered that "even an approximate estimate is fraught with difficulty". However, there was evidence that MIS had made loans to 1,016 investors, and that CBA had made loans to 757 investors, in the schemes. Beyond that, his Honour was confronted with an incomplete picture. The lenders led evidence, by reference to a client list supplied by the applicants' solicitors, that 653 of the investors in the schemes were clients of those solicitors. Of that number, the lenders' evidence was that 376 borrowed money for the purpose of their investments. 370 of them were natural persons. 158 of them had loans from MIS; these had average net assets of $1.38m and an average gross annual income of $234,562. 218 of them had loans from CBA; these had average net assets of $187,523 and an average gross annual income of $157,134. Of the investors who were clients of the applicants' solicitors, nine had borrowed in excess of $500,000, and all of these had net assets of over $1m. The primary Judge observed that "the Lenders only provide[d] information as to about 21% of those persons who took loans from them in order to acquire an interest in the relevant schemes". 113 The evidence from the applicants' solicitors was that they did not have 653 clients from those who invested in the schemes. They had only 409 investors as clients, 142 of whom had taken out loans from MIS and 172 of whom had taken out loans from CBA. His Honour accepted these figures. The solicitor making the affidavit deposed that he did not have the loan applications of most of his clients, and that he did not seek to calculate their average net assets or average gross annual income. In this state of affairs, the primary Judge noted that he had no information "as to the financial characteristics of the vast bulk of the group members". If the 314 derived from adding the 142 and the 172 mentioned earlier in this paragraph were within the 376 of whom the lenders had given evidence, the result was that his Honour did not know the financial characteristics of about 90% of potential group members. But his Honour had no way of knowing whether the 314 were within the 376. His Honour added that, since the lenders' evidence as to the average net assets of those who had taken out loans was based on information obtained when those loans were applied for, the information in question was "out of date", noting that "[t]he effluxion of time and the global financial crisis may mean that their current positions are different". 114 Notwithstanding these reservations, the primary Judge concluded that it was - … likely that there are persons within the class capable of contributing to a pool of security for costs in the manner contemplated in Bray. This is at least true of the nine known group members who are identified as having large loans, and net assets of more than $1 million and true of some of the other known group members identified [in the evidence led on behalf of the lenders]. My consideration of the application for security will proceed on that basis. 115 The primary Judge next undertook something in the nature of a critique of the judgment of the Full Court in Bray, but his Honour recognised that he was bound by that judgment and, for my part, I am satisfied that his Honour made it sufficiently clear that his reservations about the judgment had no influence on the way he decided the matter before him. 116 His Honour next turned to the question whether the applicants' solicitors, and the group members who had made contributions to a fund maintained by those solicitors, relevantly stood to "benefit" from the proceedings within the meaning of the authorities. His Honour received into evidence a redacted copy of the standard conditional costs agreement between known group members and the applicants' solicitors. It contemplated the possibility that a third party litigation funder might later agree to meet what were described as "Stage 3 Post-mediation stage" legal costs. But his Honour said: "Whatever the applicants' hopes or plans in this regard, the evidence is that there are no litigation funding agreements presently on foot." The respondents led evidence of the potential availability of litigation funding, but the primary Judge regarded it as of little relevance. His Honour said that the application for security was to be determined on the basis of the arrangements which existed, rather than on the basis of those which the respondents suggested might be available. In a comment which was said to be "in passing", his Honour noted that the evidence did not establish that commercial litigation funding was available to the applicants. His Honour continued: One would be surprised if the applicants had not fully explored whether litigation funding was available, given that they stand to lose all of their assets if the proceedings are unsuccessful. It would also be surprising if [the applicants' solicitors] had not done so, as if litigation funding was secured the firm might expect to be paid its costs and disbursements as incurred, rather than being paid conditional upon success. 117 The agreement between the applicants and their solicitors provided that, unless the class actions had a successful outcome as defined, the solicitors would be paid only a small proportion of the legal fees to which they would otherwise be entitled and the disbursements which they had made. The solicitors would initially receive only a small fixed amount from each of the applicants and known group members, 25% of which would be paid into a separate interest-bearing account to be used to meet any adverse costs order and, if not required for that purpose at the conclusion of the proceeding, would be payable to the solicitors. Save for this initial amount, the balance of the fees owing to, and of the disbursements made by, the applicants' solicitors would be payable only in the event of a successful outcome. If there were such an outcome, the applicants' solicitors would be entitled to receive 100% of the disbursements incurred, and the balance of their professional fees calculated in accordance with the costs agreement up to a maximum of the amount recovered from the respondents. Additionally, there was a "case management fee", calculated as 20% of the legal costs recovered from the respondents and any part of the remaining 80% of those costs which exceeded the small fixed amounts initially paid by group members. 118 In a lengthy - and apparently strongly-felt - passage in his Honour's reasons, the primary Judge rejected the proposition that the applicants' solicitors should be regarded as persons standing to benefit from a successful conclusion to the proceedings because they had entered into agreements which entitled them to their fees, and to the "uplift" which was inherent in the case management fee, only in the event of such a conclusion. The gravamen of his Honour's thinking is set out in the extract which appears in para 43 of the reasons of Allsop CJ and Middleton J, and it is not necessary for me further to rehearse those aspects here. 119 With respect to the question whether the known (ie in the sense that they had engaged the applicants' solicitors) group members should be regarded as standing to benefit from a successful conclusion to the proceedings, the primary Judge said: Although I doubt this is what is intended in authorities such as KP Cable, it must be accepted that group members benefit by participation in Part IVA proceedings. I have taken into account the financial circumstances of the known group members in my decision. 120 The next question which the primary Judge thought relevant to address was whether security would have been awarded if separate actions had been brought by the group members. His Honour noted that "the overwhelming majority of the known group members are individuals, ordinarily resident in Australia and suing for their own benefit", and that "[a]bsent some other compelling factor the respondents could not realistically expect to obtain an order for security in an individual case brought by such claimants." His Honour continued: As Lindgren J observed in [Ryan v Great Lakes Council (1998) 155 ALR 447] at 456, in a class action the Court should assess a security for costs application on the assumption that in the absence of the representative proceeding each of the group members would commence their own proceedings. If the respondents were facing individual claims from even half of the 3191 possible group members the costs incurred by the respondents would be likely to be well more than $8.2 million. The same would likely be the case even if only the 409 known group members brought individual claims. It is hard to see why the applicants should be in a worse position with regard to security because they utilise a mechanism provided to increase access to justice and judicial efficiency. 121 That brought the primary Judge to the question whether an order for security would stifle the action and shut the applicants out from pursuing an arguable claim. His Honour noted that it was for the applicants to establish this part of the case. If only the applicants were taken into account, his Honour held it to be plain that an order for security for costs of $8.2m (or even a more conservative figure of $6.4m) would stifle the litigation. The real question, however, was whether the proceedings might be stifled if the burden of a security for costs order were "spread across the group members through a pooling arrangement". The primary Judge was unable to see how a security order might be made by reference to the financial characteristics of the unidentified group members "as their identity, and even their number, is unknown". But the thrust of the respondents' submissions was that his Honour should consider the application by reference to the financial characteristics of the known group members. This was an important part of the case before the primary Judge, and it is necessary to refer in some detail to the terms in which his Honour dealt with it. 122 His Honour commenced with some arithmetic. He said that, if the 409 known group members were required to pay an equal share of $8.2m into a pool for security for costs, they would be required to pay about $20,000 each. If some of these group members were unable to do so, or refused to pay, the amount required from each of the remaining ones would likely increase to $30,000 or more. His Honour identified the question to be addressed as "whether provision of security in these amounts may stifle the proceedings and shut out the applicants and group members from pursuing claims which are arguable." 123 The applicants' solicitor had made an affidavit which set out some calculations which he had performed as to the mean (the simple average), the median (the middle number) and the mode (the most frequently occurring number) of the investments made by his clients. The results were: • Clients with MIS Loans • Mean • $124,156.80 • Median • $84,480.00 • Mode • $42,240.00 • Clients with CBA Loans • Mean • $82,735.47 • Median • $62,500.00 • Mode • $50,000.00 • All clients (with or without loans) • Mean • $103,310.99 • Median • $77,000.00 • Mode • $42,240.00

There was also evidence that the applicants' solicitors had 126 clients who had invested $50,000 or less, 190 clients who had invested between $50,001 and $100,000, 69 clients who had invested between $100,001 and $200,000, and 20 clients who had invested more than $200,001. 124 With respect to the above evidence, the primary Judge said: The calculation of the "mode" amount which is the investment most frequently made by the known group members, is of assistance. It shows that the loss most frequently suffered by known group members is in the order of $42-$50,000. Of the known group members 77% invested up to $100,000, and 30 percent invested less than $50,000. The applicants contend that in these circumstances the cost of contributing $20-$30,000 for security for costs is likely to be seen by a large proportion of the known group members as disproportionate to the amount likely to be recovered by them upon success in the proceedings. There is some force to the submission that this is likely to stifle the litigation. 125 His Honour continued that it was "unnecessary to determine this question by inference alone", since the applicants' solicitors had conducted a "random sample" survey of 50 known group members as to their inability or unwillingness to contribute $20,000, alternatively $30,000, to a financial pool. The survey indicated that a high percentage of known group members were unable to pay security in such amounts. About 80% advised that they were both unable and unwilling to pay either $20,000 or $30,000. About 65% indicated that they would not continue to participate in the class action if they were required to pay security in such amounts. Although the survey was of a limited sample and had what the primary Judge described as "other limitations", it was, in his Honour's view, "of real assistance". His Honour continued: If even 60% of the known group members are unable, or refuse, to contribute to the pool then the contributing group members would total only 163. Pooling the $8.2 million security for costs between 163 known group members would require a contribution of about $50,000 per person. It is likely that an increase to this amount would operate to further reduce the number of contributing group members and further increase the quantum of security payable by those remaining. 126 The primary Judge then dealt with a number of arguments against the utility of the applicants' solicitors' survey that had been advanced by the lenders. The first was that no questions were asked on the basis that partial security of, say, 50% be provided; nor on the basis that security might be provided in stages. His Honour's response to this was: However, payment in stages would not alter the ultimate amount due, and in any event the respondents did not seek orders for payment in stages or partial payment of security. I can see nothing wrong in the questions in the survey being asked as they were. The second argument was that the survey was random rather than targeted at those known group members with the largest investments or the most significant assets. His Honour's response to this was: However, if the survey was not random it would likely have been the subject of different criticisms. I note also that two known group members with net assets of over $1 million were approached to respond to the survey, and they apparently chose not to respond. The third argument was that the survey should have been performed on the basis that security contributions would be sought pro rata to the claim amount of each known group member. His Honour's response to this was: There is some merit to this criticism but I doubt that it would make a significant difference to the response of the majority of the known group members. The final argument was by way of criticising the survey for having dealt only with the known group members, the clients of the applicants' solicitors. His Honour's response to this was: It is not clear to me how the applicants can properly be criticised for failing to provide any information as to the capacity to meet security for costs of group members whose identity and financial characteristics are unknown. The Lenders may have been able to provide some evidence as to the financial characteristics of the non-[applicants' solicitors] group members who obtained loans from them, but they did not. 127 Completing this section of his reasons, the primary Judge said: The question is whether the arguable claims of the applicants and group members are likely to be stifled by an order for security. The fact that in a random survey about 80% of known group members said that they could not afford to pay security, and about 65% said they would no longer participate in the actions, is good evidence of this. As against this there is no evidence that the known group members of more substantial means are prepared to shoulder the burden of security. This evidence is in contrast with the lack of such evidence in Bray where the applicants did not adduce any evidence about the ability or preparedness of the group members to contribute to security: Bray per Carr J at [139] and [142]. His Honour added that the risk of stifling the proceedings required careful consideration in the context of class actions. They were "notoriously expensive both to conduct and defend". Most natural persons who brought a class action would be "relevantly impecunious" and there were "very few Australian citizens that could afford to meet security for costs in the amounts involved". His Honour said that "[c]are must be taken in these circumstances to ensure that this does not unfairly deprive people of their fundamental right of access to the courts through the Part IVA mechanism." 128 The primary Judge's conclusion was as follows: There are many factors which militate against an order for security for costs in these proceedings. It is clear that the applicants cannot provide the security sought, whether paid in a lump now or over stages, and the survey indicates that a large proportion of the known group members are also unable or unwilling to contribute to a pooling arrangement to share the burden of such security. The applicants in the three proceedings are ordinary Australian citizens of average means. The vast majority of known group members are also natural persons. These are not cases where the applicants have been chosen for their impecuniosity or so as to allow others to shelter behind them. The applicants are not people with nothing to lose. I do not consider that the applicants' impecuniosity alone justifies an order for security and respect should be given to their right of access to the Court. The proceedings are brought bona fide, are regularly pleaded, disclose arguable causes of action and I assume that they have reasonable prospects of success. If the applicants and group members commenced individual proceedings it is unlikely that security for costs would be ordered against them. At least the proceedings against the Lenders are to a significant degree defensive. I am satisfied that an order for security is likely to stifle the applicants and group members' pursuit of their claims. The respondents were unable to take me to any reported decision in which security for costs has been awarded in class action proceedings against a natural person applicant. That is not to say that such an order cannot be made, but it illustrates the care that should be taken in this context. An order for security for costs in these proceedings is not appropriate.

THE ISSUES ARISING ON THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE 129 In each of the applications for leave now before the court, there was a draft Notice of Appeal, setting out provisionally the grounds upon which the respondents concerned would rely if leave were to be granted. 130 The directors have four provisional grounds of appeal, which may be summarised as follows: 1. The primary Judge failed to follow Bray by not balancing the policy reflected in s 43(1A) of the Federal Court Act against the risk of injustice to the directors if security were not ordered, by accepting the proposition that the protection provided by s 43(1A) would be removed or substantially reduced by the making of an order for security, and by refusing to accept that a principle for which Bray stood was that the financial resources of an applicant's lawyer were to be taken into account. 2. The primary Judge failed to take into account a number of relevant considerations, namely, the need to distinguish between the directors and the lenders when considering whether a proceeding was offensive or defensive, the need to address separately the question whether an order for security in the proceeding against the directors would stifle the litigation, the fact that the directors had sought security in two stages, the potential availability of third party funding, the circumstance that the applicants' solicitors were standing behind the litigation and stood to benefit from it, the evidence of the financial position of 409 of the group members and the need to weigh the quantum of the damages sought against the directors against the quantum of the security sought by them. 3. The primary Judge took irrelevant considerations into account, namely, that there were defensive elements of the proceeding against the directors, that $3.85m was being sought as security by the lenders in other proceedings, and the unwillingness, as opposed to the inability, of the group members to contribute to security. 4. The primary Judge mistook some facts, namely, in finding that the proceeding against the directors had some defensive elements and that the applicants' solicitors did not stand to benefit from the litigation. 131 The scheme companies have four provisional grounds of appeal, which may be summarised as follows: 1. The primary Judge failed to follow Bray by not balancing the policy reflected in s 43(1A) of the Federal Court Act against the risk of injustice to the scheme companies if security were not ordered, by narrowing his consideration of the characteristics of group members and by failing to take account of the fact that the applicants' solicitors stood to benefit from the litigation. 2. The primary Judge mistook some facts, namely, in finding that the applicants' solicitors did not stand to benefit from the litigation, that the proceeding against the scheme companies had some defensive elements and that group members were unwilling and/or unable to contribute to a financial pool. 3. The primary Judge failed to take into account three relevant considerations, namely, the financial position of 409 of the group members, the fact that the applicants' solicitors stood to benefit from the litigation and the existence of potential alternatives with respect to the quantum and source of security sought. 4. The primary Judge took irrelevant considerations into account, namely, that there were defensive elements of the proceeding against the scheme companies, that, absent the representative proceeding, the group members, or a significant proportion of them, would each commence his or her own proceeding, that $3.85m was being sought as security by the lenders in other proceedings, and the unwillingness, as opposed to the inability, of the group members to contribute to security. 132 The lenders (each in its own application) have five provisional grounds of appeal, which may be summarised as follows: 1. The primary Judge failed properly to apply the principles in Bray. 2. The primary Judge failed to balance the risk of injustice to the lenders by being unable to recover costs if successful against the policy reflected in s 43(1A) of the Federal Court Act. 3. The primary Judge failed to characterise the applicants' solicitors, and the group members who retained them, as persons funding the litigation who stood to benefit from a successful outcome and failed to take into account the terms of the conditional costs agreements between the applicants' solicitors and their clients. 4. The primary Judge failed to consider whether an award of security would stifle the claims or legal rights of group members (as distinct from stifling the proceedings as such or any like representative proceedings); his Honour adopted an "all or nothing" approach and did not consider whether the risk of stifling could be alleviated by an award of security in a lesser amount than that sought by the lenders; and his Honour treated deficiencies or uncertainties in the evidence of group members as weighing against an award of security, thereby reversing the onus of proof. 5. The primary Judge mischaracterised the proceedings as defensive and did not take into account the fact that many of the group members' claims were partly or wholly offensive, including the possibility that any perceived defensive aspect of the proceedings could be addressed by an award of security in a lesser amount. 133 Unsurprisingly, there is a degree of overlap in these grounds. From them (to the extent that they were developed in the submissions made before the Full Court) it may be seen that the following issues are raised in the respondents' cases that there is sufficient doubt about the correctness of the decision of the primary Judge to warrant appellate consideration of the grounds advanced: 1. For what proposition or propositions does Bray stand? Specifically, does Bray provide support for the proposition that, in a representative proceeding under Pt IVA of the Federal Court Act, the solicitor conducting the case or the group members who have instructed that solicitor should be regarded as persons standing behind the named applicant who would benefit from a successful outcome? 2. Was the primary Judge obliged to balance the injustice that would arise if the respondents succeeded in the case and could not recover their costs against the policy reflected in s 43(1A) of the Federal Court Act, and, if so, did he fail to address that balance? 3. Was the primary Judge obliged to regard the applicants' solicitors as persons standing behind the applicants who would benefit from a successful outcome? 4. Was the primary Judge obliged to consider the potential for litigation funders to be engaged in connection with the proceedings, and, if so, did his Honour fail to consider that aspect? 5. Was the primary Judge obliged to consider the potential for all members of the group involved in these representative proceedings to make a contribution to security for costs? 6. To the extent that consideration is to be given to the position of persons who would so benefit, should the question be whether they are willing to contribute to security or whether they are able to contribute to security? Did the primary Judge's reasons reflect the correct approach in this regard? 7. Was the primary Judge's treatment of the limited, and in some respects incomplete, evidence in the case - on the question of the ability or willingness of the known group members to contribute to security - such as effectively to reverse the onus of proof? 8. Was the primary Judge correct to characterise the proceedings against the lenders as being, to a significant degree, defensive, and to characterise the other proceedings as having some defensive elements for group members with loans? 9. Should the primary Judge have considered the questions which arose on the security applications proceeding-by-proceeding, or was he correct to take the global approach which he did? 10. Should the primary Judge have considered whether security might be ordered in lesser amounts than were sought by the respondents, or in stages, or was he correct to address one question only, namely, whether security in the amounts sought should be ordered then and there?

THE NATURE OF THE TASK AT HAND 134 The questions arising on the applications for leave to appeal are whether there is sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the judgment below to warrant its being considered by the Full Court and, if so, whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong: Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397, 398-399. Because of the purpose of an order for security, mentioned below, and the sums involved, if the second question arose, it would have to be answered in the affirmative. 135 The judgment of the primary Judge was a discretionary one. Conformably with the well-known principle in House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499, before an appeal will be allowed from such a judgment, "[i]t must appear that some error has been made in exercising the discretion" (55 CLR at 505). Furthermore, his Honour's judgment was given on a question of practice and procedure, in which setting a "tight rein" should normally be kept upon appellate interference with judgments at first instance: Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170, 177, applying In re the Will of Gilbert (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318, 323. Nevertheless, "the question of injustice flowing from the order appealed from will generally be a relevant and necessary consideration" (148 CLR at 177) and, if it be established in the present case that the orders made below were attended by error and that substantial injustice would result, I do not understand it to be suggested that leave to appeal should not be granted.

BRAY 136 Bray was a representative proceeding under Pt IVA of the Federal Court Act commenced by an individual who had net assets of $73,000 and whose only source of income was an invalid pension of $931.40 per month. Her solicitors did not hold instructions that any of the group members would be able to provide security for costs (see 130 FCR at 346 [134]). One of the respondents sought security. The primary Judge rejected that application, relying on factors which included the following (130 FCR at 347-8 [136]): • public policy considerations weigh strongly against an order for security of costs that might impede or hinder the group members' claim for injunctive relief and for damages resulting from the cartel arrangement; • the kind of circumstances that might warrant an order for security for costs against an impecunious individual bringing a representative proceeding are absent in the present case. With the "substantial" agreement of Branson and Finkelstein JJ, Carr J held that those factors disclosed an error of principle (130 FCR at 348 [137]). 137 Carr J held that an order providing reasonable security for costs did not necessarily operate indirectly to remove the effect of the immunity provided by s 43(1A). As to whether an order for security would be made, his Honour said (130 FCR at 348 [142]): Much would depend upon the number of group members involved, their financial circumstances and in particular whether an order for security for costs might stifle the proceedings. In that regard, in my opinion, it was for the applicant to adduce evidence about the likely effect of any order for security for costs. She chose not to do so and in my view, in those circumstances, the discretion having miscarried, it should be exercised again. Carr J also held that the primary Judge had erred by treating it as a "condition precedent" to the making of an order for security that the named applicant had been deliberately selected as a "person of straw" in order to immunise from costs orders others of more substantial means and by imposing on the respondent seeking security the onus of proof in those respects (130 FCR at 348 [144]). 138 In addition to agreeing substantially with what had been written by Carr J, Finkelstein J drew attention to some special circumstances attending representative proceedings which might go either against or in favour of granting security. His Honour dealt first with the potential for the characteristics of group members to bear upon the subject. His Honour said (130 FCR at 374 [252]): Dependent upon the type of proceeding, the represented group may be quite diverse. The group may include corporations as well as natural persons. The members of the group, whether corporate or not, may be rich or poor. In my view, the characteristics of the group should be taken into account on an application for security. Accordingly, if there is still a rule that an order for security should not be made against an impecunious natural person (for a criticism of the absoluteness of this rule see Melville v Craig Nowlan & Assocs Pty Ltd (2002) 54 NSWLR 82), the rule may have little application to many class actions. His Honour next dealt with the prospect that there would be others than the applicant and the group members funding the litigation. His Honour said (130 FCR at 375 [252]): It is also appropriate to bear in mind that it is commonly the case in a class action that a person will stand behind (I mean fund) the applicant. Usually this will be the applicant's solicitor, who will sometimes charge what is referred to as a "contingency fee" for the privilege. When a proceeding is brought by a "nominal plaintiff" that is a plaintiff who will not himself benefit from the action but is making the claim for the benefit of someone else, an order for security is usually made. A party who is being funded by his solicitor is not really a "nominal plaintiff". Nevertheless, the solicitor does stand to benefit from the action (especially as regards the additional fee) if the action is ultimately successful, as the solicitor will then be able to recover his costs. That is a relevant, though not a decisive, consideration when deciding whether security should be ordered. 139 The third member of the court in Bray, Branson J, was in substantial agreement with Carr and Finkelstein JJ (130 FCR at 361-362 [214]). 140 In understanding the judgments in Bray, it is essential to keep in mind that, although it was readily to be inferred that the litigation was being funded by someone other than the named applicant, there was no evidence about the agreement, if any, that the applicant had with her solicitors and, as noted above, the solicitors did not hold instructions that any of the group members would be able to provide security for costs. Carr J did not join in Finkelstein J's observation as to the potential for an applicant's solicitor to be regarded as someone who would benefit from a successful outcome. Although Branson J probably has to be regarded as having been in substantial agreement with those observations, I think they were obiter in the circumstances. On the facts as they were presented to the Full Court, Bray was not a case which turned on the nature of the funding arrangements existing between a representative applicant and the solicitor conducting the case. 141 In the circumstances, I would regard Bray as authority only for the propositions positively adumbrated by Carr J, namely, that s 43(1A) of the Federal Court Act does not, as a matter of policy, stand in the way of the success of an application for security in a representative proceeding, that the financial circumstances of the group members are relevant to such an application, and that the named plaintiff carries the onus of proof in that regard. In the present case, the primary Judge neither misunderstood nor misapplied the first two of these propositions. His Honour recognised the third, but it will be necessary to return to that subject below.

BALANCING THE CONSIDERATIONS 142 The decision of the primary Judge was made under s 56(1) of the Federal Court Act, which provides: The Court or a Judge may order an applicant in a proceeding in the Court, or an appellant in an appeal under Division 2 of Part III, to give security for the payment of costs that may be awarded against him or her. This provision gives the court a general discretion, the only relevant limitation upon which is that it must be exercised judicially: Bell Wholesale, 2 FCR 1 at 3. 143 Because the proceedings before the primary Judge arose under Pt IVA of the Federal Court Act, s 43(1A) of that Act was relevant (see para 110 above). But so too was s 33ZG(c)(v) of that Act, which provides: Except as otherwise provided by this Part, nothing in this Part affects: … (c) the operation of any law relating to: … (v) security for costs. Section 43(1A) did not, therefore, affect the operation of s 56. 144 "The purpose in ordering security for costs is to provide protection to a party brought into litigation by a party who is unable to meet the costs of that other party, should the litigation be unsuccessful.": Delta Electricity v Blue Mountains Conservation Society Inc [2010] NSWCA 264 at [4]. To that extent, the injustice that would arise if the respondents succeeded in the present case and could not recover their costs against the unsuccessful applicants is self-evident and would have to be weighed in the balance. But that is only a starting point, albeit a fundamental one. In the present case, it was taken as a given that the applicants would be unable to pay the respondents' costs. The question then arose whether any of the exceptions to what would then have been the respondents' presumptive entitlement to security was relevant. The exception which required, and was given, consideration particularly was whether a requirement to provide security would stifle the litigation. The relevance of that exception was accepted by the respondents. Ultimately, it was the basis upon which the primary Judge rejected their applications for security. Absent some measure of success in their present endeavour to impugn the way his Honour dealt with the matter of stifling, the respondents' point that the primary Judge did not properly put the injustice of them being deprived of their costs on the scales would seem to be a moot one. 145 Where does s 43(1A) of the Federal Court Act enter the picture? In Bray, it was held that this provision did not preclude the court from awarding security in a representative proceeding, and did not provide a discretionary basis for refusing, categorically, to consider the characteristics and circumstances of the group members for their potential to answer the question whether there were persons other than the named applicant for whose benefit a particular proceeding was being conducted. The subsection implied no policy that the ability of group members to contribute to security was not to be taken into account. There was, according to the Full Court in Bray, no necessary opposition between the purpose of an order for security, to which I referred in the previous paragraph, and the purposes of s 43(1A). 146 There was a section in the reasons of the primary Judge that created the impression - which, for present purposes, I am prepared to accept was an accurate one - that his Honour disagreed with the judgment in Bray, and saw a deal of merit in earlier judgments which had expressed a different view as to the significance of s 43(1A). But his Honour made it clear that this section formed no part of his deliberative reasoning, and the subsection was not mentioned later in his reasons, including the "conclusion" which summarised why he considered that an order for security should not be made. 147 In the circumstances, this first issue does not provide a proper basis for the grant of leave to appeal.

THE APPLICANTS' SOLICITORS 148 It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the conditional costs agreement into which the applicants' solicitors had entered with their 409 relevant clients was such as to put those solicitors into the position of third-party beneficiaries for the purposes of the principles referred to above. I would not accept that submission. In the conventional case, a solicitor will be entitled to his or her fees and disbursements, on a solicitor/client basis, regardless of the outcome of the proceeding in question. A solicitor who agrees to forego all or part of that entitlement unless a successful result is achieved does not, in my opinion, thereby convert the proceeding in question into one commenced for the benefit of others. The "benefit" referred to in the rule was never intended to capture ordinary remuneration for professional services or reimbursement of disbursements made in the course of conducting the case. 149 I would express the same conclusion in a situation in which the solicitor in question is entitled to more than what would otherwise be his or her conventional solicitor/client costs in the event of a successful outcome, provided always that the additional entitlement - or "uplift" as it has been described - is not related to the award received by the applicant in the proceeding and is otherwise within the limits permitted by any applicable legislation. I take the view that the arrangements made between the applicants and their solicitors in the present case would, even in the event of a successful outcome, still be regarded as giving rise to nothing more than remuneration for the professional services of those solicitors. To the extent that the reasons of Finkelstein J in Bray (130 FCR at 375 [252]) are to be understood as proposing that a solicitor on the record for an applicant in a group proceeding, even one who has entered into an agreement along the lines of the one that was before the primary Judge in the present case, was necessarily to be treated as a person for whose benefit the proceeding was brought so as to bring his or her financial circumstances, and ability to contribute to security for costs, into play on an occasion such as the present, I consider that those reasons overstate the correct position. Beyond that, I would not want to enter upon the wider question of when, if at all, the size of an uplift in fees, in the event of a successful outcome in a case, would turn a solicitor into a person for whose benefit the litigation was commenced.

LITIGATION FUNDERS 150 While there is no categorical requirement, in all cases in which security for costs is sought, for the potential for funding from litigation funders to be considered, nonetheless the present was a case in which the potential was raised by the lenders, not merely as a matter of submission but also by leading some evidence on the subject. Where it lay upon the applicants to prove that an order for security would stifle their access to justice, it was not, in my respectful view, sufficient for the primary Judge to confine himself, as a matter of relevance, to the arrangements which existed. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it was to be inferred that those arrangements were the result of the choices of the applicants. It was not enough for his Honour to have expected that the applicants' solicitors would have explored whether litigation funding was available: in a situation in which the applicants carried the onus, they had chosen not to lead evidence on the subject. In the absence of any such evidence, it was not, in my view, open for the primary Judge to hold that the provision of security would stifle the proceedings.

RELEVANCE OF GROUP MEMBERS' CIRCUMSTANCES 151 Representative proceedings under Pt IVA of the Federal Court Act have a special quality which cannot be ignored when questions of security for costs arise: they involve "open" classes of group members. An applicant will define on whose behalf the proceeding is brought and, unless they opt out, all persons who fit within the relevant definition will be part of the group, and bound by any result. They would, in one sense, benefit from a successful outcome on the part of the applicant. Depending on the nature of the case, that benefit may be neither automatic nor the equivalent of that achieved by the applicant. The applicant may have achieved answers to common questions which are favourable for other group members, but the latter may still be required to establish (possibly more problematic) answers to their own individual questions before they become entitled to a final outcome as beneficial as that achieved by the applicant in his or her own case. There is also the circumstance that the other group members need not be known to the applicant. Many of them may not even be aware of the litigation. To the extent that they do not opt out, they are assumed to be interested in receiving a benefit of some kind from the outcome, but, in many cases, that assumption will be artificial in point of fact. 152 In the circumstances, I do not think there can be any categorical proposition that all group members in a representative proceeding are necessarily to be treated as persons standing behind the applicant for the purposes of the principles which govern the disposition of applications for security. It would not be reasonable to condition an impecunious applicant's recourse to Pt IVA on his or her ability to marshal support from persons who are unknown to him or her. But that does not mean that the circumstance that a proceeding is a representative one, and that there are necessarily persons other than the applicant who would benefit, to some extent at least, from a favourable outcome, can never be relevant for the purposes of those principles. Consistently with the reasons of Carr J in Bray (130 FCR 317), the court's approach should be a pragmatic and realistic one which recognises the realities of the case at hand. 153 In the present case, what was significant, in my view, was not the mere fact that the proceedings were representative ones. It was that there were 409 persons who had engaged the applicants' solicitors. They were known to the applicants and had made a financial commitment to support the litigation to some extent at least. On any view, they were to be regarded as persons standing behind the applicants who would benefit from a favourable outcome. Their circumstances were relevant when the primary Judge came to consider whether an order for security would stifle the litigation. Indeed, his Honour approached the question on that basis. But I would not accept that the applicants bore the onus of bringing the financial circumstances of other members of the class - apparently amounting to about 87% of the total - before the court in the context of the stifling submission which they made.

WILLINGNESS OR ABILITY 154 In the case of a normal proceeding with a single, unsupported, applicant, it is because of his or her impecuniosity that a security for costs order would presumptively stifle the proceeding. "Impecuniosity" itself is, of course, a relative term, and will always involve a degree of judgment on the part of the court. At least in modern times, I do not believe it has ever been suggested that it implies utter destitution. On the other hand, there may be situations in which an applicant's access to credit, for example, would compromise his or her ability to contend that an order for security would stifle the proceeding. Clearly the overall financial circumstances of the applicant would need to be considered. During the hearing of the present applications, it was suggested that the question should be whether an applicant was "reasonably able" to provide security, and I would be content to adopt that formulation. 155 From the situation of a single unsupported applicant as I have discussed it above, the law moved to the situation in which, although there was one applicant only, there were others standing behind him or her who would stand to benefit from a successful outcome to the litigation. An obvious case was that of a company with creditors or shareholders; another was that of a trustee. In such a situation, the applicant would not be heard to contend that an order for security would stifle the litigation unless he or she brought into play (as it has sometimes been put) the assets of those standing behind. At this level, the question must have been the same as would have been put to the applicant as such: are you reasonably able to provide the necessary security? Or, is each of you reasonably in a position to make a contribution by means of which, overall, sufficient security will be provided? 156 In a passage set out by the primary Judge himself (see para 109 above), in Bell Wholesale the Full Court held that litigation should not be held to be frustrated unless the applicant company established that those who stood behind it and who would benefit from the litigation "are also without means" (2 FCR at 4). That was tantamount to stating the criterion as inability, not mere unwillingness. Although Bell Wholesale was a case in which a company was the applicant, in principle the same criterion should apply where the applicant is an individual suing for the benefit of others. 157 However, the distinction presently of concern was not the main focus of the Full Court's attention in Bell Wholesale. Their Honours were principally concerned with the issue of onus of proof. I do, with respect, agree with what was said on the subject by Phillips JA (with the agreement of Ormiston and Charles JJA) in Ariss v Express Interiors Pty Ltd (In liq) [1996] 2 VR 507, 515: To my mind, there is much force in the contention, advanced before us, that what was said in Bell Wholesale has perhaps been extended beyond its context in later cases. It may not matter that the court in that case was concerned principally with an order for security under the Rules of Court (so that s 533(1) of the Companies Code (Qld) was considered only as a possible "alternative source of power"); and I do not pursue that point of distinction, if such it be. But additionally the court was only required in that case to say which of the two parties had had the task below of addressing by evidence the issue of stultification. The court decided that question against the plaintiff (using the terms already quoted); and that question does not now arise. There can be no absolute rule that, in order to resist an order for security on the ground that the litigation will be altogether frustrated, there must be evidence that those who will benefit from the litigation are without means; it will depend upon how the case is being put. His Honour was of the view that Bell Wholesale was only a specific application of a wider principle, namely, "that if a plaintiff company seeks to resist an order for security on the ground of stultification, then it must establish the necessary factual basis before the argument can be weighed in the exercise of discretion." His Honour continued ([1996] 2 VR at 515): The argument of stultification means no more than that if an order for security is made the order cannot be met, with the result that the litigation will be brought to a premature end. Bell Wholesale decided only that, if the plaintiff relies upon a want of means to establish that the order cannot be met, the plaintiff must demonstrate that fact by reference, not to its resources (which ex hypothesi must be inadequate if the discretion is called into play), but by reference to the resources of those who will benefit from the litigation and who might reasonably be expected to meet some of the costs …. In Ariss itself, it was held not to amount to a miscarriage of the primary Judge's discretion for him to have taken into account, in refusing to order security, the "commercial impracticability" of requiring creditors of the plaintiff company to contribute to security, having regard to the relationship between the amount of security being sought and the size of the debts which they claimed to be owed. 158 Likewise in BPM Pty Ltd v HPM Pty Ltd (1996) 131 FLR 339 Anderson J, with the concurrence of Kennedy and Ipp JJ, said (131 FLR at 344): The criticism of the master's decision on this aspect of the application is that he decided the wrong question in that he looked not to the capacity of the creditors, but to their likely attitude to providing security. I am not sure that the master did actually confine himself to the question of the likely willingness of the creditors, although he certainly did consider that subject, as is plain from his reasons recited above. I think the master is to be understood as having decided the correct question, namely whether in practical commonsense terms it was reasonable to expect the creditors of this plaintiff company to put up a very substantial sum as security for costs. Their likely attitude, their likely unwillingness to do so, was merely something to be discussed in that context, that is, as to whether in all the circumstances it would be reasonable to require the creditors to provide the first defendant with security for its costs… 159 In Jeffcott Holdings Ltd v Paior (1996) 15 ACLC 28, Doyle CJ, with the concurrence of Prior and Nyland JJ, said (15 ACLC at 32) that it was - … adequately established by authority that a relevant factor is the question of whether the making of an order will mean that the corporation is unable to continue with its proceedings. That makes relevant the question of whether a shareholder or creditor or other person standing behind the company could reasonably be expected to satisfy an order for security. His Honour cited, and applied, relevant aspects of the judgment of Phillips JA in Ariss. 160 Where a proceeding is brought by a single applicant, clearly he or she could not be heard to submit that a requirement to provide security would stifle the proceeding in the absence of evidence of his or her means. It would not be sufficient for him or her to state on affidavit an unwillingness to provide the security. The question of means would fall to be decided objectively, and that could only be done upon a consideration of the applicant's circumstances. In my view, the authorities require the same approach to be taken when there are several applicants, and where there are persons standing behind the applicant for whose benefit the proceeding is brought. The question must be whether their "means" - that is, their financial circumstances generally - are such (to use the formulation of Doyle CJ in Jeffcott Holdings) that it would not be reasonable to expect them to satisfy (ie to contribute to the satisfaction of) an order for security. That question too must be addressed objectively. While there is no categorical requirement that they be "unable" to provide the security required, clearly evidence that they were merely unwilling to do so, in the absence of evidence of their means such as would permit the court to determine the matter objectively, would not be sufficient. 161 Returning to the circumstances of the present case, the respondents' application for security was conducted before the primary Judge over two days: 1 and 7 June 2012. On the first day, the respondents' evidence referred to at para 112 above, and the averages tables set out at para 123 above, were before the court. In response to an inquiry from the court, counsel for each of the groups of respondents indicated the amount of security that their clients were seeking. The total was about $9.2m. Senior counsel for the scheme companies accepted that that sounded like a lot of money, but, "[w]hen you divide that by the number of investors, 409, we have $22,457. And when given the 20 per cent discount that [senior counsel for the lenders] referred to, that's $20,917. That's cheap …." Subsequent interchanges between counsel and the primary Judge tended to work by reference to a round figure of about $20,000 that would have to be found by each of the known group members if the whole of the security sought by the respondents were to be provided at the outset. Then, counsel for the applicants submitted, and his Honour appeared to accept, that, to the extent that some of the 409 group members did not respond to the invitation to provide security, the per-head figure would correspondingly increase. 162 That kind of intuitive analysis substantially informed the survey of known group members conducted by the applicants' solicitors. By means which were not challenged on the present applications, 84 of their clients were randomly identified as respondents to the survey, 50 of whom responded. The survey was conducted by telephone. There was a standard script which the questioner was required to follow. After dealing with the nature and circumstances of the litigation, the script continued: The respondents have asked the Court to make orders requiring the lead applicants to provide security (a designated sum of money) for their costs. If the respondents successfully defend the proceeding, the money will then be available to the respondents to pay their legal costs. The respondents have asked for a total of approximately $9.2m to be provided as security. If the Court makes the order the respondents' [sic] seek, the proceedings cannot continue until the security has been provided. It was explained that the interviewee would never come under an obligation to pay costs to the respondents, and that he or she was not, at that stage, being asked to provide money. The script then continued: Based on the above, in addition to the amounts you have already paid to us and the ongoing amounts that you are required to pay to us under your existing retainer, if the applicants were ordered to pay security: A. can you afford to pay $20k towards the costs of that security? What about $30k? B. would you be willing to pay $20k towards any security ordered? What about $30k? C. if security was ordered to be paid and we sought from you payment in the amount of $20k, would you remain part of the class action and continue retaining M+K to act on your behalf? What about if we sought $30k? The "$20k" was, in each case, the per-head amount which was the subject of submissions on 1 June 2012. The "$30k" had no specific significance, but was chosen by the applicants' solicitors as representing a contribution higher than $20,000 which might be necessary if a substantial number of the group members refused to contribute at the lower level. 163 I have referred to the results of the survey, as summarised in the reasons of the primary Judge, at para 125 above. 164 On the second day of the hearing before the primary Judge, 7 June 2012, various issues were dealt with, but it was determined that the parties' submissions with respect to the survey conducted by the applicants' solicitors would be received in writing. That was what happened, and I next refer to the written submissions which were filed accordingly. 165 On behalf of the directors, it was submitted that the applicants had taken no steps to put evidence before the court of the actual financial position of their 406 clients (ie additionally to the three named applicants) or of their ability to provide security for costs. In the circumstances, the only evidence of the ability of those who would benefit from a favourable result in the case was that called on behalf of the respondents, to the effect set out in para 112 above. It was submitted that the applicants had failed to discharge their onus of proof, and that, it being apparent that the 376 group members referred to had, at the times of their borrowings, net assets of $346m, there was no room for any inference that they were unable to contribute to security. 166 With respect to the survey conducted by the applicants' solicitors, the directors submitted that that the questions posed did not address the ability of the interviewees to contribute to an order for costs. Those submissions continued: Questions directed to whether the clients could "afford" security are of little assistance, given that the expression "afford" has a subjective meaning that many [sic] mean different things to different people. The questions were also not accompanied by an explanation that if the action were successful the money provided by way of security would be refunded. Nor is it apparent that the clients understood that in the event that security were not provided, and the proceeding stayed, they may become liable to pay the outstanding balance of their loans. 167 The scheme companies adopted the submissions made on behalf of the directors. 168 On behalf of the lenders, it was submitted that there was evidence that the group members could provide security, that the evidence introduced since the first day of the hearing did not support the conclusion that the clients of the applicants' solicitors would not provide security, and that that evidence did not address the position of the 87.2% of group members who were not clients of those solicitors. It was submitted that the survey was "fatally flawed by reason of two false premises", namely, that, if an order for security were made, (1) it would be in the total sum of about $9.2m, and (2) it would operate immediately in that amount, rather than, for example, providing for the provision of security in stages. Thus, it was submitted, "the figures selected were those most likely to elicit a negative response from those surveyed". 169 The lenders then submitted that there were four "methodological and evaluative shortcomings" in the survey conducted by the applicants' solicitors, namely: The survey did not capture the clients of the applicants' solicitors most likely to be willing and able to contribute to security. Rather than randomly selecting group members from amongst their clients, consistently with the implicit objective of maximising the prospect of the proceedings continuing, the applicants' solicitors should have surveyed those with the most to gain from the litigation, namely, at least in the first instance, the nine clients of the solicitors with loans in excess of $500,000, all of whom had net assets of more than $1m. Only two of them were within the 84 clients surveyed, and neither responded. Of those who did respond, only one had a loan amount over $200,000, and that respondent was prepared to provide the security proposed. Secondly, the survey inexplicably assumed that an equal contribution from all [the solicitors'] clients would be appropriate such that those with higher loan amounts and means would be subsidised by those with lower loan amounts and means. This was inherently likely to render the amount of security sought from those with small loans disproportionate to the commercial benefit that they could expect from a successful outcome of the litigation. The more equitable approach would be to seek a security contribution pro-rata with claim amount. For example, the total principal of loans sought to be avoided by the 409 … clients is about $37 million … and, adding interest, the total amount claimed by them is $50-55 million; the total security sought is therefore about 15-16% of the total amount at stake in the proceedings for the … clients (leaving aside loss of use damages which have not been particularised). If [the] clients surveyed had been asked whether they would be prepared to contribute, say, 15% of their loan amount and interest, the responses may have been very different. The security sought would have been more affordable and worthwhile on a cost-benefit analysis for those with smaller loans. The surveyed clients were not told that, if they succeeded at trial, they would get their money back. Some of the responses confidentially made available by the applicants indicated that the interviewees in question laboured under the assumption that the security being sought would constitute money lost once and for all, and it might be inferred that others did likewise. Nothing was known about the circumstances of the group members who had not retained the applicants' solicitors. They constituted 87.2% of those who had taken out loans with the lenders. It could not be inferred that they would be unwilling to contribute to security. 170 I consider that there is substance in a number of the respondents' criticisms of the way the applicants went about proving the circumstances of the known group members. Their solicitors had 409 clients who had signed agreements with them. In those circumstances, it was not, in my view, satisfactory for them to have proceeded by way of "survey". It may be that to canvass the circumstances of all 409 would have been a task of some proportions, but, at the same time, every one of those 409 group members would, if the case were successful, be required to have his or her claim processed. The applicants' solicitors having assumed the obligation of taking on each such person as a client, it was not, in my view, sufficient for them to respond to the obligation imposed upon the applicants by the respondents' applications for security by making telephone inquiries of 50 of the group members only. Apart from the obviously incomplete quality of the information which the solicitors thereby obtained, I would also accept the criticism that, designed in the way that it was, the survey was not calculated to maximise the prospect of the applicants finding, and interrogating, the group members who were most likely to be able, and to have it in their interests, to contribute to security. 171 Neither, in my view, was the content of the survey - which, I would add, was wholly the doing of the applicants and had not been canvassed before the primary Judge - suitable for the task upon which the applicants ought to have been engaged. The questions were intensely subjective, concerned as they were with what would have been an interviewee's reaction to a request that he or she contribute to security. In the case of a single applicant from whom security was sought, answers to questions in those terms would never be sufficient. He or she would need to inform the court of his or her financial circumstances. Save as may have been implied by the wholly subjective answers to the questions posed in the survey, the applicants did not grapple with that subject, even in the case of the limited number of group members whom their solicitors contacted. 172 The terms in which the primary Judge dealt with the respondents' objections has been summarised above in these reasons. His Honour said that there was "some force" in the applicants' contention that the cost of contributing $20-$30,000 for security for costs "is likely to be seen by a large proportion of the known group members as disproportionate to the amount likely to be recovered by them upon success in the proceedings". His Honour described the survey results as indicating that "a high percentage of known group members are unable to pay security" of $20,000 or $30,000. Then at the point of considering the knock-on effect on the contributions required of remaining group members if some of their number did not contribute, his Honour contemplated a situation in which 60% of them "are unable, or refuse" to contribute. Ultimately, his Honour held that the fact that about 80% of known group members "said that they could not afford to pay security", and about 65% "said they would no longer participate in the actions" if security in the amounts asked about was ordered, was "good evidence" that the arguable claims of the applicants and group members were likely to be stifled by an order for security. 173 In my respectful view, the primary Judge was in error to have accepted, and based his judgment on, the results of the applicants' survey. The survey was not calculated to elicit information about the financial circumstances of the 409 group members represented by the applicants' solicitors. The questions in it, and therefore the results of it, were subjective and, in significant respects, required judgments to be made by the interviewees which ought to have been for the court. In this respect, I consider that there is substance in the argument of the directors that "afford" involves a subjective concept which may mean different things to different people. Significantly for present purposes, I do not think that it sufficiently paints an objective picture of the means of the people concerned. Indeed, in the common vernacular, the word probably involves elements both of unwillingness and inability, according to the personal financial priorities of each person being questioned. 174 For the above reasons, I take the view that the primary Judge was in error not to have held that the applicants did not establish that the group members who had engaged their solicitors were not reasonably able to make the required contribution to security.

ONUS OF PROOF 175 There are some indications in the reasons of the primary Judge that the absence of evidence on particular aspects of the case was held against the respondents. However, in the context of the reasons as a whole, I consider the argument that his Honour cast upon the respondents the onus of calling evidence of the circumstances of group members on the stifling point to be a weak one. This was civil litigation in which "all evidence is to be weighed according to the proof which is in the power of one side to have produced, and in the power of the other side to have contradicted": Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 173, 202 [170]. In one instance, the primary Judge observed that the lenders, who had led evidence as to the financial circumstances of some of the group members, had not gone further. In another instance, having referred to the survey results as "good evidence" that the arguable claims of the applicants and group members were likely to be stifled by an order for security, his Honour said: "As against this there is no evidence that the known group members of more substantial means are prepared to shoulder the burden of security." Statements such as these do not, in my view, imply a reversal of the onus of proof, the correct direction of which was clearly apparent to his Honour. Rather, as will be apparent from the previous section of my reasons, I consider that his Honour's error lay in accepting as sufficient evidence from the applicants which ought not to have been accepted. I would not grant leave to appeal by reference to the respondents' onus of proof point.

DEFENSIVE OR OFFENSIVE PROCEEDINGS? 176 On this aspect, I agree with what has been written by Allsop CJ and Middleton J.

PROCEEDING-BY-PROCEEDING OR GLOBAL APPROACH? 177 Strictly, the applicants had chosen to institute three proceedings and the question whether security should be provided fell to be answered in relation to each. However, two factors would then have been relevant. First, no distinction was to be made as between the scheme companies and the directors: although separately represented, they were parties to the same proceeding. The primary Judge did, of course, have to address the applications for security which were made by each of these groups, but he was, in the circumstances, justified in dealing with the stifling point by reference to the ability of the applicants to provide the total security that was sought. Secondly, the lenders themselves made no distinction by reason of the fact that, technically, they were sued in separate proceedings. They were jointly represented and, apparently, part of the same corporate group. 178 In the proceedings before the primary Judge, the first of the respondents to make submissions were the directors. At the outset, senior counsel for them said: Your Honour, in terms of the directors' application, what is sought is a total of $2 million, and the basis on which that is sought is really in two amounts. One [is] the cost of [sic - costs before?] trial and the other for trial costs. And we don't understand there to be any real issue about quantum, so I don't propose to address your Honour on that. Later, senior counsel submitted that the primary Judge needed "to look, in the first instance at least, to each application separately on its merits". Counsel for the scheme companies adopted the submissions of counsel for the directors, adding that their clients' sum was $2.4m. They proceeded to the calculations referred to in para 161 above. So far as I can see, the lenders made no particular submission to the effect that their application for security should not be dealt with at the same time as the others. 179 Had the primary Judge determined one only of the applications before him, that determination would necessarily have been a complicating circumstance in the next application which he came to consider: it would have had to be taken into account on the question of the tendency of any second order to stifle the litigation. And so on. In this environment, whether the applications were considered sequentially or, as his Honour did, together, was essentially a question of procedure. I do not detect, in the transcript of the hearing before his Honour, any conspicuous resistance on the part of the respondents to the conjoint consideration of the applications, and indeed, the $20,000 calculations proposed on behalf of the scheme companies (which did not provoke any protest from the directors or the lenders) implied the taking of such an approach. 180 I do not think that the respondents' application for leave to appeal derives any support from this consideration.

THE POSSIBILITY OF STAGING 181 The ordering of security to be provided in stages is a reasonable approach commonly taken in lengthy and costly proceedings. To the lenders' suggestion that the applicants' survey was deficient for not having questioned the interviewees about such a possibility, the primary Judge said that "payment in stages would not alter the ultimate amount due, and in any event the respondents did not seek orders for payment in stages or partial payment of security." As to the second part of this statement, it is true, as noted above, that the directors - and, by adoption, the scheme companies - did submit that security might be ordered and provided in two stages, but his Honour was correct to observe that a staged approach was not sought in the application made by either of these groups. Neither was it sought in the lenders' application. And, apart from the submission to which I have referred (which, I would have to say, was made almost in passing, when compared with the emphasis placed on other aspects of the directors' case), there was scant reference to the desirability of security being provided in stages until the point where written submissions were filed in relation to the applicants' survey. 182 If his Honour's approach to the question of stifling were otherwise unobjectionable, I would not regard his treatment of the staging point as justifying the grant of leave to appeal.

Disposition of the application and appeal 183 To summarise what I have said above, I consider that the primary Judge was in error in two respects, each connected with the obligation of the applicants to put before the court evidence which would sustain the conclusion that an order for security would stifle the litigation. The first, and in my view more significant, aspect is the failure of the applicants to establish in point of objective fact what were the financial circumstances of the group members who had engaged their solicitors, and the related error of accepting the survey results as sufficient in that regard. The second aspect is his Honour's disregarding the prospect of the applicants being able to obtain the services of litigation funding, in circumstances where that prospect was the subject of positive evidence from the lenders. Although a matter of procedure in one sense, the availability of security for costs in an appropriate case is an important dimension of the civil justice system administered in the court. It follows that leave to appeal from the primary Judge's judgment of 17 December 2012 ought to be granted. 184 Leave having been granted, I would uphold the respondents' appeals for the two reasons identified in the previous paragraph. 185 The question then arises whether the matter should be remitted to the primary Judge for reconsideration. Here I note that Allsop CJ and Middleton J likewise take the view that the evidence before the primary Judge did not sustain the conclusion that an order for the provision of security would stifle the proceedings concerned. Neither on appeal nor, so far as I can see, before the primary Judge, was there any serious suggestion on behalf of the applicants that the respondents would not have been conventionally entitled to an order for security (to some extent at least) in the absence of the applicants having discharged the onus of establishing that the provision of security would stifle their litigation. I make that observation, of course, in the light of the inability of the applicants to satisfy an order for costs (which was and is uncontroversial) and of the jurisprudence laid down in Bray that the characteristics of group members other than the applicants were proper to be taken into account. I agree that orders 1-7 proposed by their Honours should be made. 186 I do not, however, agree with the other members of the Full Court that the respondents should have half only of their costs of the application for leave and of the appeal. They have been substantially successful. It is true that not all of their arguments were accepted, and it is true that we have declined their invitation to undertake for ourselves the task of working out how much security should be ordered, and in what stages. But the respondents were wholly successful in what was on any view the burden of their cases in the Full Court: they secured the reversal of the primary Judge's refusal to order security, and have obtained an order that security be provided. On the conclusions of the Full Court - those of Allsop CJ and Middleton J no less than of myself - I regard this as a clear case in which costs should follow the event. I would order the applicants to pay the respondents' costs in each application/appeal. I certify that the preceding eighty-four (84) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jessup.