Legal Research
Cases
Attorney General v Morrison [No 2]

Attorney General v Morrison [No 2]

Case [2022] WASC 295 2 September 2022

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   ATTORNEY GENERAL -v- MORRISON [No 2] [2022] WASC 295
CORAM:   CURTHOYS J
HEARD:   4 AUGUST 2022
DELIVERED          :   2 SEPTEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1361 of 2022
BETWEEN:   ATTORNEY GENERAL
Applicant
AND
ROBERT NOEL MORRISON
First Contemnor
ROBERT FRANK MORRISON
Second Contemnor

Catchwords:

Contempt of court - Breach of undertaking given to State Administrative Tribunal - Aiding and abetting breach of undertaking - Elements of contempt of court for breach of undertaking

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 55 r 4, r 7(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 100(1)

Result:

First contemnor guilty of contempt
Second contemnor guilty of contempt

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	J Shaw
First Contemnor	:	In person
Second Contemnor	:	In person

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia
First Contemnor	:	Not applicable
Second Contemnor	:	Not applicable

Cases referred to in decision:

Advan Investments Pty Ltd v Dean Gleeson Motor Sales Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 201
Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 84; (2012) 42 WAR 425
Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union v Mudginberri Station [1986] HCA 46; 161 CLR 98
Chief Executive Officer, Department of Environment and Conservation v Szulc [2010] WASC 195
Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union v Grocon Constructors (Victoria) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 261
Hammond v Aboudi [2005] 31 WASCA 204; (2005) WAR 533
International Land Developments Pty Ltd v Diamo Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] WASC 96; (2007) 34 WAR 201
Pang v Bydand Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 69
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Allen [2012] WASC 258
Seaward v Paterson [1897] 1 Ch 545
The Queen v Hinch [2013] VSC 520
Windsurfing International Inc v Sailboards Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 19 FCR 110
Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525
Z Ltd v A-Z [1982] 1 QB 558

CURTHOYS J:

Introduction

The applicant, the Attorney General, seeks orders that the first contemnor, Robert Noel Morrison (Mr Morrison Snr), and the second contemnor, Robert Frank Morrison (Mr Morrison Jnr), be punished for contempt of court for the sale of a property in contravention of an undertaking given to the State Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal). These proceedings arise from a report to this court concerning the conduct of the Morrisons by the President of the Tribunal on 2 September 2021 pursuant to s 100(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act).
On 5 August 2021, in the course of a directions hearing for guardianship and administration proceedings before the Tribunal (proceedings GAA 2976/2021), Mr Morrison Snr gave an undertaking to the Tribunal (the Undertaking). The Undertaking was that 'he would not sell, charge, transfer, mortgage (including increasing the amount of any loan either by further application or by accessing any redraw facility) or otherwise deal with the property at 146 Old Dairy Court, Oakford, Western Australia' (the Property).[1]
[1] Affidavit of Yasmin Salleh sworn 13 April 2022 [7],…

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 Attorney General v Morrison [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Attorney General v Morrison [No 2] [2022] WASC 295
Case: [2022] WASC 295
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Attorney General brought proceedings against Robert Noel Morrison (Mr Morrison Snr) and Robert Frank Morrison (Mr Morrison Jnr) for criminal contempt of court for the sale of a property in contravention of an undertaking given to the State Administrative Tribunal. The proceedings arose from a report to this court concerning the conduct of the Morrisons by the President of the Tribunal on 2 September 2021 pursuant to s 100(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). Mr Morrison Snr gave an undertaking to the Tribunal not to deal with the property in question for a week while the Tribunal considered a proposal for an interlocutory injunction. The undertaking was given by Mr Morrison Snr in the presence of Mr Morrison Jnr, who attended the Tribunal hearing with him. At the time he gave the undertaking, Mr Morrison Snr did not disclose to the Tribunal that he had already entered into a contract to sell the property to Mr Morrison Jnr. Further, Mr Morrison Jnr did not disclose that the property had been sold to him. On 6 August 2021, settlement of the sale of the property from Mr Morrison Snr to Mr Morrison Jnr was completed and the property was transferred to Mr Morrison Jnr. The Attorney General alleged that the sale of the property by Mr Morrison Snr in contravention of the undertaking and the conduct of Mr Morrison Jnr in aiding and abetting the contravention constitute contempt of court. The court found that the terms of the undertaking were clear and unambiguous. Mr Morrison Snr was aware that settlement had not yet occurred by 8.14 am on 6 August 2021. Despite the undertaking, he did not cancel the settlement. To the contrary, in response to a specific written question from the settlement agent whether he wished to proceed with settlement on that date, he instructed her to proceed and provided the signed instruction to the settlement agent to do so. Thereafter, settlement proceeded and the form effecting the transfer of the property from Mr Morrison Snr to Mr Morrison Jnr was lodged with Landgate and the relevant funds were transferred to Mr Morrison Snr's nominated account. The court found Mr Morrison Snr's conduct to be a conscious defiance of the Tribunal's authority. Mr Morrison Jnr knew that settlement of the sale of the property had not occurred at the time Mr Morrison Snr gave the undertaking on 5 August 2021. He did not, in his capacity as the buyer of the property, ask the settlement agent not to proceed with settlement in light of the undertaking similar to Mr Morrison Snr. To the contrary, in response to a specific written question from the settlement agent whether he wished to proceed with settlement on that date, he instructed that settlement proceed. He thereby wilfully engaged in conduct to enable Mr Morrison Snr to complete the sale and transfer of the property in breach of the undertaking. Mr Morrison Jnr ignored the undertaking because he wanted the settlement to proceed as soon as possible to end the mental strain and pressure on everyone. He was prepared to do whatever it took for settlement to proceed. The court found Mr Morrison Jnr to be an unreliable witness. It was clear that he was prepared to say whatever was necessary to justify his part in Mr Morrison Snr's breach of the undertaking. He did not take the order of the Tribunal nor the undertaking given by Mr Morrison Snr seriously. The court convicted both Mr Morrison Snr and Mr Morrison Jnr of criminal contempt of court.

Orders