Legal Research
Cases
Alexander v Crawford

Alexander v Crawford

Case [2003] NSWSC 426 22 May 2003

Abuse of Process

Contempt of Court

Discovery & Disclosure

Interlocutory Orders

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: ALEXANDER v. CRAWFORD [2003] NSWSC 426

HEARING DATE(S): 03-04/03/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 May 2003

JURISDICTION:
EQUITY

JUDGMENT OF: Bryson J at 1

DECISION: Plaintiff is guilty of Contempt of Court as charged.

CATCHWORDS: CONTEMPT - what constitutes - breach of undertakings - plaintiff in De Facto Relationships claim applied for injunction to restrain defendant from approaching house and other interlocutory orders - parties agreed to various interlocutory injunctions and undertakings including plaintiff not to deal with paintings in the house "other than housing the paintings at the said property, or such other place as the Court may order or otherwise agree in writing" - arrangement to inspect and catalogue paintings was not carried out - parties joined in selling house and as settlement approached plaintiff removed paintings without asking for agreement or Court order - after hearing of charge of contempt, parties settled proceedings overall - finding of contempt but no further order - discussion of proof of undertaking where communicated to Court by counsel - the Court accepts the reality of representation of parties to civil litigation by their solicitors and counsel.

LEGISLATION CITED: s.118 of the Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: Witham v. Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525
Australian Meat Industry Employees' Union v. Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Hughes [2001] ATPR 41-807
C C O M Pty Ltd v. Jiejing Pty Ltd (1992) 36 FCR 524
Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd (1992) 1 AC 191
Callow v. Young (1886) 55 Law Times NS 543
In Re Evans, Evans v. Evans [1893] 1 Ch 252
Taylor v. Whelan [1962] VR 306
Biba Ltd v. Stratford Investments Ltd [1973] 1 Ch 281
D v. A & Co. [1900] 1 Ch 484
Hussain v. Hussain [1986] Fam 134 at 140
Douglas v. Douglas (1976) 10 ALR 285

PARTIES :
Victoria Alexander - Plaintiff
Robin Crawford - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3492/02

COUNSEL: J. Wheelhouse - Plaintiff
P. Brereton SC & A. Vincent - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Delaney Lawyers - Plaintiff
Barkus Edwards Doolan - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRYSON J.

Thursday 22 May 2003

3492/02 VICTORIA ALEXANDER v. ROBYN CRAWFORD

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These reasons deal with the defendant’s Notice of Motion of 22 October 2002 claiming that the plaintiff is guilty of contempt of Court.

2 The plaintiff commenced the proceedings by Summons on 8 July 2002 and claimed injunctions restraining the defendant: (1) from selling, disposing or encumbering any of ten paintings; (2) from dealing in any way with the paintings, (3) from approaching within 100 metres or entering 22 Hopetoun Avenue, Mosman, and (4) from assaulting, molesting, harassing or communicating in any manner whatsoever with the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed a further injunction requiring the defendant to return paintings to 22 Hopetoun Avenue, Mosman. The paintings referred to in the Summons were these:

Painting Artist

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alexander v Crawford

Details

AGLC: Alexander v Crawford [2003] NSWSC 426
Case: [2003] NSWSC 426
Decision Date: 22 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Alexander v Crawford, the court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff, Alexander, had breached his undertakings by removing paintings from the house without the defendant's knowledge or consent. The case involved a dispute stemming from a de facto relationship claim, where Alexander had sought an injunction to prevent Crawford from approaching the house and other interim orders. The court was required to address the nature of contempt in the context of breaches of undertakings made to the court during litigation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's removal of the paintings from the house constituted a breach of the court's undertakings. The court had to consider the scope and enforceability of the undertakings, particularly the clause that restricted the plaintiff from dealing with the paintings without prior court order or written agreement. The court also needed to assess the circumstances under which the undertakings were made and whether they were binding on both parties.

The court found that the plaintiff had indeed breached the court's undertakings by removing the paintings without seeking prior consent or court order. However, due to the overall settlement of the proceedings, the court opted not to impose further sanctions beyond the finding of contempt. The court emphasised the importance of the representation of parties by solicitors and counsel and acknowledged the practical realities of civil litigation, including the reliance on the court's acceptance of undertakings communicated through counsel. The court concluded that while the breach was serious, the overall settlement of the matter rendered additional orders unnecessary.

The court's final order was to record the finding of contempt but did not impose any further sanctions or orders against the plaintiff. This decision highlights the court's approach to managing breaches of undertakings, particularly in the context of ongoing litigation and settlements.

Orders