ASIC v Reid (No 1)

[2006] FCA 699

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Reid (No 1) [2006] FCA 699

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for adjournment based on Dietrich principle – contempt proceeding – nature of contempt proceeding is civil not criminal even though contempt is criminal – Dietrich principle cannot apply – application refused.

Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 cited
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525 followed
New South Wales v Canellis & Ors (1994) 181 CLR 309 applied
McGibbon v Linkenbagh (1996) 41 ALD 219 cited
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Leelee Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1121 cited
Nguyen v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 101 FCR 20 cited
Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v La Rosa (2002) 196 ALR 139 cited
Rivera v United States of America [2004] FCAFC 154 cited
Vranic v Chief Executive Officer Centrelink [2004] FCA 1511cited

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v MAXWELL JOHN REID

VID 3023 of 1992

LANDER J
8 JUNE 2006
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 3023 OF 1992

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION APPLICANT
AND:	MAXWELL JOHN REID RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	LANDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 JUNE 2006
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The respondent’s application for a stay of proceedings is refused.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 3023 OF 1992

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION APPLICANT
AND:	MAXWELL JOHN REID RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	LANDER J
DATE:	8 JUNE 2006
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant commenced these proceedings by notice of motion on 17 November 2003 seeking the following orders:

   ‘1. that the respondent be committed to prison or otherwise punished for contempt of Court for contravening the order of the Honourable Justice Jenkinson made on 10 March 1992 that the respondent be prohibited, pursuant to section 230 of the Corporations Law, until 10 August 2036 from managing a corporation; or in the alternative

   2.   that the warrant ordered by the Honourable Justice Kenny on 12 February 2002 to lie on the Court file be executed; or in the alternative

   3.   that the respondent be committed to prison or otherwise punished for contempt of Court in respect of his breach of the undertaking provided by him to the Honourable Justice Kenny on 8 October 2001 that he would not be involved in the management of a company in any form at all in the future;

   4.   that the respondent pay the applicant´s costs of and incidental to this motion on an indemnity basis; and

   5.   such further or other orders as the Court deems appropriate.’

2. Accompanying the notice of motion, as required under O 40 r 6 of the Federal Court Rules, was the Statement of Charge which claimed that the contempt committed by the respondent was wilful and contumacious insofar as:

   ‘1.      in breach of paragraph 1 of the order…