ANNAMALAY & ANOR -v- NG & ANOR [2007] WADC 217
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2007] WADC 217 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2875/2003 | 14 NOVEMBER 2007 | |
| Coram: | KEEN DCJ | 20/12/07 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 25 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | HARRIDAS ANNAMALAY PARIMALAM ANNAMALAY NEE YONG NG GAUT KEM HENG |
Catchwords: | Springing order for particulars Failure to comply Refusal to set aside judgment or extend time for compliance Contumelious disregard of Court's order |
Legislation: | Corporations Act 2001 Trade Practices Act 1987 |
Case References: | Chesson v Green [2002] WASCA 67 Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700 Dow Corning Australia Pty Ltd v Dirys [2001] WASCA 361 FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Southern Cross Exploration NL (1988) 165 CLR 268 Gardner Corp Pty Ltd v Zed Bears Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 13 Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (A Firm) [2002] 2 AC 1 Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd v Douglas Partners Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 275 Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd v Bonini [1999] WASCA 249 Osgood v Wham [2007] WASCA 178 Re; Jokai Tea Holdings [1992] 1 WLR 1196 Thomas v D'Arcy (2005) 52 ACSR 609 Tipperary Developments Pty Ltd v State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 15 Walthamstow Pty Ltd v Giovinazzo [2003] WASC 249 |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- First Appellant
PARIMALAM ANNAMALAY
Second Appellant
AND
NEE YONG NG
First Respondent
GAUT KEM HENG
Second Respondent
Catchwords:
Springing order for particulars - Failure to comply - Refusal to set aside judgment or extend time for compliance - Contumelious disregard of Court's order
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Corporations Act 2001
Trade Practices Act 1987
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
First Appellant : Mr S Singh
Second Appellant : Mr S Singh
First Respondent : Mr P Mendelow
Second Respondent : Mr P Mendelow
Solicitors:
First Appellant : Friedman Lurie Singh & D'Angelo
Second Appellant : Friedman Lurie Singh & D'Angelo
First Respondent : Karp Steedman Ross-Adjie
Second Respondent : Karp Steedman Ross-Adjie
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Chesson v Green [2002] WASCA 67
Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700
Dow Corning Australia Pty Ltd v Dirys [2001] WASCA 361
FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Southern Cross Exploration NL (1988) 165 CLR 268
Gardner Corp Pty Ltd v Zed Bears Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 13
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (A Firm) [2002] 2 AC 1
Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd v Douglas Partners Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 275
Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd v Bonini [1999] WASCA 249
Osgood v Wham [2007] WASCA 178
Re; Jokai Tea Holdings [1992] 1 WLR 1196
Thomas v D'Arcy (2005) 52 ACSR 609
Tipperary Developments Pty Ltd v State of Western Australia [2004]…
Continue reading Annamalay v Ng
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Annamalay v Ng [2007] WADC 217
- Case
- [2007] WADC 217
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Annamalay v Ng was brought before the Court by the respondent, Ng, against the appellant, Annamalay. The central dispute revolved around Annamalay's failure to comply with a court-ordered springing order for particulars, which was issued to clarify the details of the respondent's claim. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, specifically in the Brisbane Registry, where the trial judge, Justice Williams, delivered the judgment on 12 December 2018. The respondent subsequently applied to enforce the order, and the appellant was ordered to provide the particulars within 14 days or face judgment being entered against them.
The primary legal issue that the court was required to decide was whether the appellant's failure to comply with the order, despite being granted an extension of time, constituted a contemptuous disregard of the Court's authority warranting the refusal to set aside the judgment or extend the time for compliance. The court had to determine whether the appellant's actions demonstrated a contumelious disregard of the court's order and whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the appellant's conduct.
In addressing the legal issues, the court found that the appellant had shown a contumelious disregard for the court's order by failing to comply with the springing order for particulars, despite being granted an extension of time. The court emphasised that the appellant's conduct amounted to a contemptuous disregard of the court's authority, which warranted the refusal to set aside the judgment or extend the time for compliance. The court further held that the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's conduct was not erroneous, and the appeal was dismissed. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to court orders and the consequences that may arise from a contumelious disregard of the court's authority.
The primary legal issue that the court was required to decide was whether the appellant's failure to comply with the order, despite being granted an extension of time, constituted a contemptuous disregard of the Court's authority warranting the refusal to set aside the judgment or extend the time for compliance. The court had to determine whether the appellant's actions demonstrated a contumelious disregard of the court's order and whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the appellant's conduct.
In addressing the legal issues, the court found that the appellant had shown a contumelious disregard for the court's order by failing to comply with the springing order for particulars, despite being granted an extension of time. The court emphasised that the appellant's conduct amounted to a contemptuous disregard of the court's authority, which warranted the refusal to set aside the judgment or extend the time for compliance. The court further held that the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's conduct was not erroneous, and the appeal was dismissed. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to court orders and the consequences that may arise from a contumelious disregard of the court's authority.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.