A, Ex parte- Re Pelekanakis

This matter concerned an application by A for an order that the respondent, Pelekanakis, be committed for contempt of court. The application arose from alleged breaches of an interlocutory injunction granted by the court on 15 March 2013, which restrained Pelekanakis from dealing with or diminishing the value of certain assets. A alleged that Pelekanakis had breached this injunction by transferring shares in a company to his wife and by failing to provide a satisfactory explanation for the depletion of funds in a bank account.

The primary legal issue before Hayne J was whether Pelekanakis had, by his conduct, committed a contempt of the interlocutory injunction. This required the court to determine if Pelekanakis had acted in wilful disobedience of the court's order. The court also had to consider the appropriate penalty, if any, for any proven contempt.

Hayne J found that A had failed to establish that Pelekanakis had acted in wilful disobedience of the injunction. While the transfer of shares and the depletion of funds were noted, the evidence did not demonstrate that these actions were undertaken with the intention of defying the court's order. The judge applied the principle that contempt of court requires proof of wilful disobedience, and that mere technical breaches or actions not intended to frustrate the court's process are insufficient for a finding of contempt. Consequently, the application for committal was dismissed.