FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 10) [2007] FCA 1814
CONTEMPT – Penalty hearing – Where respondent guilty of multiple counts of contempt of court – Considerations relevant to penalty – Contempt found to be wilful and contumacious – Prison term imposed
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules O 37 r 2Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Info 4PC.Com Pty Ltd (2002) 121 FCR 24 referred to
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v World Netsafe Pty Ltd (2003) 204 ALR 537 referred to
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 3) (2006) 230 ALR 528 referred to
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 7) [2007] FCA 1609 referred to
Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Design Elegance Pty Ltd (2006) 149 FCR 494 referred to
Clifford v Middleton [1974] VR 737 referred toAUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY v DAVID ROBERT SIMINTON
VID 1607 OF 2005TRACEY J
28 NOVEMBER 2007
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VID 1607 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY
ApplicantAND:
DAVID ROBERT SIMINTON
Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
28 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.It be declared that the respondent is guilty of contempt by reason of the matters set out in Charges 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.9 and 1.11 of the statement of charge dated 14 December 2006.
2.No findings should be made in relation to the matters set out in Charges 1.6, 1.8, 1.10 and 1.12 of the statement of charge dated 14 December 2006.
3.The respondent be imprisoned for a period of twelve months in respect of each of the contempts referred to in paragraph 1 of these Orders, each sentence to be served concurrently with each other sentence.
4.A warrant issue for the committal of the respondent to prison for a period of twelve months.
5.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the applicant’s notice of motion dated 14 December 2006 on a solicitor-client basis.
6.The warrant issue pursuant to paragraph (4) of these orders lie on the Court file until further order.
7.Until the hearing and determination of any appeal from these orders, or further order:
(a)The respondent not attend at any point of international departure;
(b)The respondent report in person every Monday (commencing on 3 December 2007) between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm to the Nunawading Police Station.
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 1607 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY
ApplicantAND:
DAVID ROBERT SIMINTON
Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE:
28 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 7 November 2007 I found that Mr Siminton had committed eight contempts of Court involving contraventions of an order made by Gray J on 10 January 2006: see Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 7) [2007] FCA 1609. These reasons should be read…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 10... and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] FCA 1814
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent was guilty of contempt based on the charges in the statement of charge, specifically identifying which charges constituted contempt and what consequences should follow. The charges involved allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct, non-compliance with an order of the court, and other related matters. The respondent contested these charges, leading to a detailed examination of the evidence and legal principles surrounding contempt of court and its implications.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the respondent was guilty of contempt as outlined in certain charges. Specifically, the court held that the respondent was guilty of the charges listed in 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.9, and 1.11. The court decided not to make findings in relation to the other charges specified in 1.6, 1.8, 1.10, and 1.12. The respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of twelve months for each contempt, with the sentences to run concurrently. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant’s costs and imposed conditions on the respondent pending the outcome of any potential appeal. The warrant for the respondent’s committal to prison was to remain on the court file until further order, and the respondent was prohibited from attending any point of international departure and required to report to a police station on a weekly basis.
The court's final orders included the declaration of guilt for specified charges of contempt, the imposition of a twelve-month imprisonment sentence for each count, the payment of costs, and specific conditions to be observed by the respondent pending any appeal. These orders underscore the court's determination to enforce compliance with its directives and to uphold the integrity of its processes.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. It be declared that the respondent is guilty of contempt by reason of the matters set out in Charges 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.9 and 1.11 of the statement of charge dated 14 December 2006.
2. No findings should be made in relation to the matters set out in Charges 1.6, 1.8, 1.10 and 1.12 of the statement of charge dated 14 December 2006.
3. The respondent be imprisoned for a period of twelve months in respect of each of the contempts referred to in paragraph 1 of these Orders, each sentence to be served concurrently with each other sentence.
4. A warrant issue for the committal of the respondent to prison for a period of twelve months.
5. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the applicant’s notice of motion dated 14 December 2006 on a solicitor-client basis.
6. The warrant issue pursuant to paragraph (4) of these orders lie on the Court file until further order.
7. Until the hearing and determination of any appeal from these orders, or further order:
(a) The respondent not attend at any point of international departure;
(b) The respondent report in person every Monday (commencing on 3 December 2007) between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm to the Nunawading Police Station.
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
Established by: TRACEY J
Full text does not contain this section.