Baker v Paul

Case [2013] NSWCA 426

Court of Appeal

New South Wales
Case Title: Baker v Paul
Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCA 426
Hearing Date(s): 10 September 2013
Decision Date: 11 December 2013
Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Barrett JA at [43];
Gleeson JA at [44]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT - first respondent restrained by freezing order from using his assets other than for permitted purposes - first respondent's assets defined to include assets of third respondent - separate order made restraining third respondent from disposing of its assets - first respondent applied moneys of third respondent for permitted purposes - whether orders unclear or ambiguous - whether first respondent knowingly interfered with administration of justice by assisting in breach of orders by third respondent
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 601AD, 601AH
Evidence Act 1995, s 119
Supreme Court Act 1970, s 101
Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 55 Div 3 Rule 7
Cases Cited: Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] 1 AC 191
Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan [1965] HCA 21; 112 CLR 483
Cardile v LED Buildings Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 18; 198 CLR 380
CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1992) 36 FCR 524
CTM v The Queen [2008] HCA 25; 236 CLR 440
Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 22; 209 CLR 478
ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1992) 38 FCR 248
Kirkpatrick v Kotis [2004] NSWSC 1265; 62 NSWLR 567
Matthews v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] NSWCA 155
Metcash Trading Ltd v Bunn (No 5) [2009] FCA 16
Pang v Bydand Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 69
Redwing Ltd v Redwing Forest Products Ltd (1947) 177 LT 387
Seaward v Paterson [1897] 1 Ch 545
Sigalla v TZ Limited [2011] NSWCA 334
Spokes v Banbury Board of Health (1865) LR 1 Eq 42
Wellesley (Lord) v Mornington (Earl) (1848) 11 Beav 180; 50 ER 785
Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; 183 CLR 525
Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL [1982] QB 558
Zhu v Treasurer of NSW [2004] HCA 56; 218 CLR 530
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kenneth James Baker (First Appellant)
KJB Media Pty Ltd (Second Appellant)
Anthony Christopher Paul (First Respondent)
ACN 129 258 546 Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
Tony Paul Media Ltd (Third Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
M Sneddon, K Tang (Appellants)
E Peden (First Respondent)
No appearance (Second and Third Respondents)
- Solicitors: Solicitors:
McLaughlin & Riordan (Appellants)
McLean & Associates (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2012/334072
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:

Continue reading Baker v Paul

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Baker v Paul [2013] NSWCA 426
Case
[2013] NSWCA 426
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Baker v Paul*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an appeal concerning alleged contempt of court. The dispute arose from a freezing order that restrained the first respondent from using his assets, which were defined to include the assets of the third respondent, for purposes other than those permitted by the order. A separate order had also been made restraining the third respondent from disposing of its assets. The first respondent had applied moneys belonging to the third respondent for permitted purposes.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the orders made were unclear or ambiguous, and consequently, whether the first respondent had knowingly interfered with the administration of justice by assisting in a breach of the orders by the third respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the primary judge. The reasoning focused on the interpretation of the freezing order and its application to the assets of the third respondent. The Court found that the orders were not unclear or ambiguous and that the first respondent's actions constituted a knowing interference with the administration of justice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.