Adams, R.E. v Anthony Bryant & Company Pty Ltd

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

OF AUSTRALIA

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	NSW G.116 of 1986
)

DIVISION

GENERAL

)

BETWEEN:

RONALD EDWARD ADAMS

Prosecutor

AND:	ANTHONY BRYANT & CO PTY LTD Defendant

CORAM :	WILCOX J
PLACE :	SYDNEY
DATE :	15 MAY 1987

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS

THAT:

The

application

for

stay

of proceedings be

dlsmissed.

2 .

The applicant

to the notice

of motion pay the

respondent’s costs

of the notices of motion.

3 .

The

exhibits

be returned.

2 .

AND THE COURT DIRECTS

THAT:

Upon

payment

the

fine ordered, the Registrar of

the Court invest the said fine

in a securlty or

securities authorized under the Trustee Act

1 9 2 5

New South Wales pendlng the determinatlon of the appeal in this matter or until further order.

Note:

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt wlth In Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

)

NSW G.124

Of 1986

)

DIVISION

GENERAL

BETWEEN :

RONALD EDWARD ADAMS

Prosecutor

AND:	ANTHONY BRYANT & CO PTY LTD Defendant

CORAM :	WILCOX J
PLACE:	SYDNEY
DATE :	15 MAY 1987

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS

THAT:

The

application for a

stay of proceedlngs be

dismissed.

2 .

The applicant

to the notice of motlon

pay the

respondent's costs of the notice of motlon.

3 .

The

exhibits

be returned.

2 .

AND THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

Upon payment

the fine ordered, the Registrar

the Court invest the said fine In

a security or

securities authorized under the Trustee Act 1 9 2 5 of appeal in this matter or untll further order.

Note :

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt wlth in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSW

G.135

1986

GENERAL DIVISION

)

BETWEEN: RONALD EDWARD ADAMS

Prosecutor

AND: VENN CHARLES WILLIAMS

Defendant

CORAM :	WILCOX J
PLACE:	SYDNEY
DATE :	15 MAY 1987

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The

application for 2 stay of proceedlngs be

dismissed.

2. The applicant to the notice of motlon pay the respondent's costs 01 the notlce of motion.

The

exhibits be

returqed.

AND THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

the event that the fine already

pald

to the

Registrar of the Court has not already been

pald into

consolidated revenue, the Registrar invest the said

fine in a security or securitles authorized under the

Trustee Act 1925 of New South Wales

pending the

determination of the appeal or until further order.

Note :

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with In Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	NSW G.146 Of 1986
)

DIVISION

GENERAL

)

BETWEEN:

RONALD EDWARD ADAMS

Prosecutor

AND:	BRIAN AHEARNE Defendant

CORAM :	WILCOX J
PLACE :	SYDNEY
DATE :	15 MAY 1987

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The

application

for

stay

of proceedlngs be

dismissed.

2 . The applicant to the notice of motion pay the respondent's costs of the notlce of motion.

3 .

The

exhiblts

be returned.

2 .

AND THE COURT DIRECTS

THAT:

A .

In the event

that the fine already

pald

to the

Registrar of the Court has not already been paid into consolidated revenue, the Reglstrar invest the sald fine in a security or securities authorized under the Trustee Act 1925 of New South Wales pending the

determlnation of the appeal

or untll further order.

Note:

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

I N

T H E

F E D E R A L

C O U R T

A U S T R A L I A

)

NEW SOUTH	WALES	D I S T R I C T	R E G I S T R Y	)
1

D I V I S I O N

G E N E R A L

)

NSW

G . 1 1 6

and 1 2 4 of

1 9 8 6

BETWEEN:

RONALD

EDWARD

ADAMS

Prosecutor

AND:

ANTHONY

BRYANT

& CO PTY LTD

D e f e n d a n t

NSW

G . 1 3 5

O f

1 9 8 6

BETWEEN:

RONALD

EDWARD

ADAMS

Prosecutor

AND:

VENN

CHARLES

WILLIAMS

D e f e n d a n t

NSW

G . 1 4 6

1 9 8 6

BETWEEN:

RONALD

EDWARD

ADAMS

Prosecutor

AND:	BRIAN AHEARNE D e f e n d a n t

CORAM :	WILCOX J
PLACE:	SYDNEY
DATE :	15 MAY 1987

EXTEMPORE

REASONS

FOR JUDGMENT

There are before the Court amended notices of motlons

in four matters.

They arlse out of a judgment I gave on l4

April 1907 in which I imposed fines upon the respectlve defendants in each matter after pleas of gullty. In two cases, namely G.116 and G.124, the fines were imposed upon a

company, Anthony Bryant

& CO Pty Limited, In each case In the

sum of $40,000.

In the other two cases, namely

G.135 and

G.146, fines of $0,000 were imposed upon each of two

individuals, being directors of Anthony

Bryant.

I understand that the two indlvidual defendants have

paid their respectlve fines but that the company has not yet paid the fines rmposed apon it. Notices of appeal have Seen

filed in each case. Application

has been made today for a

stay of proceedings in each matter pendlng further order of

the Court.

In the case of the company the intent is that,

pending the outcome of the appeal, the company

should not be

obliged to pay the fines.

In the case of the lndlvldual

appellants, the intent 1s that the moneys already pald by way

of flnes should be refunded pending the outcome of the appeal.

Other than tendering the notices of appeal, counsel for the

appllcants on the notlces

of motion has tendered no evldence

I n support of the application made

by hlm.

The orders that I made required payment of the flnes

withln 21 days, a period which has now explred.

At one stage

I was told that some or all of the present appllcants would

seeking an extension of tune for paylng the fines;

gathered, on the basis

that to pay within 21 days would cause

hardship or other difflcultles. However, no such appllcation has been made and there is no materlal before the Court to

indicate that the payment of fines wlthln	the time stlpulated
by my order would occasion any hardshlp.

In my view, there is no basls of principle upon which

I can accede to the appllcations made to me

today. The basic

prlnciple is that there is a presumption that a ~udgment

appealed from is correct.

Order 52 rule 17 of the Federal

Court rules provides specifically

that an appeal to the Court

shall not operate as

a stay of execution

or of proceedlngs

under the judgment appealed

from except so far as the Court or

~ u d g e

may direct.

The onus is on an applicant for

B stay to

put before the Court reasons why there should be a stay.

was recently said by Dawson

J, in the Federal Commissioner of

Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd 6 4 ALR 325 at p.327, that such an application wlll be granted only where special circumstances exlst.

In the present case

I have no material before me as

to circumstances ~ustifying

such an order, whether special or

otherwise. All that has been said on behalf of the appllcants 1s that if the appeals succeed -- and I Interpolate, glven the

fact that there were pleas of gullty, this

should really be

expressed "as to the extent

that the appeals succeed and the

appellants receive some refund of the fines they have pald

the meantime" -- they would have been deprlved

of the earnlng

potentlal of that money pending the return

of the money to

4 .

them.

I take this point, but I think that protectlon can be

granted in this situation by adopting the course whlch 1

recently took in another matter and which I have discussed

with counsel, namely, giving a direction to the Registrar for

investment of the fines in authorrzed securitles pending the

determination of the appeals or other order.

As I understand the course available to the

Registrar, he will be able to put the money upon deposlt at commercial rates and this will ensure that it earns interest

in the meantime.

I would envisage that to the extent that the

appeals or any of them may succeed

and money be refunded, then

the appropriate interest would go back to the appellant.

There may be circumstances where one

would take a

different course.

If this was a case where there was evidence

to show that in order to pay the fine some asset would have to

be sold at a sacrificial price, there

would be a case of

hardship which would not be accommodated by the course whlch I

have indicated.

But no evidence has been put before me,

despite my drawing attention to the omission of any such

evidence, and I can only assume that

no such hardshlp is

involved.

In these circumstances, I do not think that any

case of circumstances warranting

a stay is made out.

It is not only a matter of ensuring that,

in the long

term, consolidated revenue receives whatever flnes are

properly payable.

The impositlon of a fine is a discipllnary

matter and it is in the publzc interest, as has been submltted

on behalf of the respondent, that flnes which are imposed for

disciplinary reasons be paid in the normal course and that

there not be any Idea abroad that one can simply purchase

postponement by an appeal. I emphasize that I am not

suggesting that the appeals in thls case are lodged for that

purpose, but it is important that, unless there are good

reasons, orders be complied with according to thelr terms.

Consequently, I reject the application for a stay	of
proceedings in each matter.

I make the following directions in regard to the

flnes:

I direct that, upon payment of the flnes ordered in

matters G.116

and G.124, the Registrar of the Court lnvest the

said fines in S security or securities authorized under the

Trustee Act 1925 of New South Wales

pending the determination

of the appeals in those matters or further order. In the

event that the fines already

pald to the Registrar in matters

G.135 and G.146 have not already been

paid into consolidated

revenue, I direct that a similar course be taken	by the
Registrar in respect of each of those fines.

I order that the appllcants to the notices of rnotlon

pay the respondent's costs of the notices

of motion and the

exhibits to be returned.

I certify this and the four (4)

preceding pages to be a true copy of

the Reasons for Judgment of

his Honour Mr Justice Wllcox.

Associate:

. .

Date:

10 June 1987

Counsel f o r the Applicants:	Mr J A Timbs
Solicitors for the Applicants:	Philllps Fox
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J S Hllton
Solicitors fo r the Respondent:	Director of Public Prosecutions
Date(s) of hearing:	15 May 1987

[1987] FCA 302

15 May 1987