In Austcorp Project Number 20 Pty Ltd v The Trust Co (PTAL) Limited, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2015] FCA 850, the Federal Court of Australia had to determine whether to dismiss the proceedings for failure to comply with previous orders for security for costs, or vary those orders for security. The basis upon which the Court made the orders for security in the first place is set out in Austcorp Project Number 20 Pty Ltd v LM Investment Management Ltd [2014] FCA 1371, and was canvassed in an earlier blog post, which can be viewed here.

In the end, the plaintiffs’ application for a variation of the existing orders for security was dismissed, as the Court was not persuaded the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs was sufficient to justify a conclusion that security should be provided in instalments (as now sought), rather than in a lump sum (as previously ordered).  In those circumstances, the Court also determined the appropriate course was to make a self-executing order to the effect that, if the plaintiffs do not comply with the existing orders for security within a further month, then the proceedings will be dismissed with costs.  This was consistent with the approach adopted in Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Ltd v Bank of China [2012] FCA 701, amongst other cases.