Federal Court of Australia

True EV Distribution Pty Ltd v Shenzhen Xiaopeng Motors Supply Chain Management Co Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 866

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of their interlocutory application dated 10 June 2026.

2.    The respondents’ interlocutory application dated 10 June 2026 is otherwise dismissed.

3.    The Court’s order made on 30 April 2026 be varied by substituting the following dates for those appearing in the respective paragraphs of that order:

(a)    paragraph 8 – 29 June 2026;

(b)    paragraph 9 – 6 July 2026;

(c)    paragraph 10 – 24 July 2026;

(d)    paragraph 11 – 9 September 2026;

(e)    paragraph 17 – 8 July 2026;

(f)    paragraph 18 – 21 August 2026; and

(g)    paragraph 19 – 15 July 2026.

4.    There be liberty to apply on reasonable notice.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript

JACKMAN J:

1    On 30 April 2026, I ordered, among other things, that the applicants pay $1,256,860 into court as security for costs, with the first tranche of $628,430 to be paid by 31 May 2026. The applicants failed to make that payment. The solicitors for the respondents wrote to the applicants’ solicitors on 1 June 2026, and were told that the applicants needed a further two weeks to make the payment of the first tranche. The respondents’ solicitor requested proper material to substantiate the applicants’ position by 9 June 2026.

2    On 9 June 2026, the Court confirmed that no security had been paid. On 10 June 2026, the applicants’ solicitor said that the applicants needed until 22 June 2026 to make the payment of the first tranche. On 10 June 2026, the respondents filed an interlocutory application seeking that the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to s 56(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 19.01(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). In light of the applicants’ stated position, I decided to list the interlocutory application for 29 June 2026, being a week after the applicants’ foreshadowed timeframe of 22 June 2026.

3    On 26 June 2026 at 4.21pm, my associate was informed by email from the applicants’ solicitor that the applicants had paid the first tranche of security that day. That is further confirmed by an affidavit made yesterday by the applicants’ solicitor.

4    By the time that payment was made, the respondents had incurred the costs of preparing the interlocutory application and affidavit, together with written submissions in support. While the first tranche has now been paid, it was paid about four weeks late, and after the additional timeframes proffered on two occasions by the applicants had come and gone. In those circumstances, while it is appropriate to dismiss the interlocutory application, the applicants should pay the respondents’ costs of the interlocutory application.

5    There is a further issue as to the consequential effects on the timetable and hearing date for the trial which is fixed to commence on 6 October 2026 for an estimate of three weeks. The respondents have proffered new dates for the pre-trial steps, which appear to me to be reasonable. The applicants would prefer that I simply re-list the matter for a case management hearing on 10 July 2026. In my view, I should make the orders sought by the respondents, which will enable the hearing to take place in October. There is liberty to apply on reasonable notice in the event that the applicants seek some further variation to those orders, or a vacation of the hearing date.

6    Accordingly, I make the above orders, in accordance with the draft orders propounded by the respondents.

Associate:

Dated:    3 June 2026