FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Craven v Ready Flowers Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 865

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, including reserved costs

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1    The appellant appealed against a judgment of Dowsett J. On 18 June 2014, I ordered that the appellant provide security for the respondent’s costs of the appeal in the amount of $10,000: [2014] FCA 693. I also ordered that in the event that the appellant did not provide such security on or before 16 July 2014, the appeal stand dismissed.

2    The appellant failed to provide security by the required date and, accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

3    The respondent now seeks its costs of the appeal, including the costs of its application for security for costs which I reserved. The parties have provided written submissions.

4    The respondent submits that costs should follow the event. The appellant submits that each party should bear its own costs, or alternatively, that any decision as to costs should be postponed until the outcome of proceedings in QUD 156 of 2014.

5    The tortuous history of litigation between the parties is set out in my judgment concerning security for costs. Relevantly, in the course of an application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, the appellant sought to demonstrate that the respondent had perpetrated a fraud on the Federal Magistrates Court. Greenwood J declined to grant the extension and ordered that the appellant pay the costs of the application. The respondent served a bankruptcy notice on the appellant based on the costs order. The appellant has brought proceedings QUD 156 of 2014 in the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court seeking to set aside the costs order.

6    The appeal that now stands dismissed was against Dowsett J’s order dismissing the appellant’s application to set aside the bankruptcy notice.

7    The appellant submits that the costs orders he seeks should be made because:

(a)    proceeding QUD 156 of 2004 may result in the costs order made by Greenwood J being set aside;

(b)    the respondent committed a fraud on the Federal Magistrates Court, resulting in the costs order being made; and

(c)    the order for security for costs should not have been made.

8    The first matter is speculative and unlikely. The second has not been proved. The third is irrelevant. I am not satisfied those matters justify departure from the usual position that costs follow the event.

9    As the appeal stands dismissed, the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, including reserved costs.

Associate:

Dated:    14 August 2014