The first, second and fourth respondents are guilty of contempt in that they have not provided all copies of air time reports of service providers to the applicant or her nominees within 48 hours of receipt of the same, thereby contravening the order of the Honourable Justice Douglas made by consent on 27 July 2001.
2.
The first to sixth respondents are guilty of contempt in that they have prevented the applicant from taking an equal share of the stock referred to in paragraph 6(c) of the order of the Honourable Justice Douglas made by consent on 27 July 2001, thereby contravening that order.
3.
The first and second respondents are not guilty of contempt in relation to the charge of denying the applicant access to the database referred to in paragraph 6(d) of the order of the Honourable Justice Douglas made by consent on 27 July 2001.
4.
The first to sixth respondents are guilty of contempt in that they have denied the applicant access to all connection contracts to 13 July 2001 for 30 days from 27 July 2001, thereby contravening the order of the Honourable Justice Douglas made by consent on 27 July 2001.
5.
Matter adjourned to a date to be fixed for the purpose of hearing further submissions as to penalty, compensation and costs.
CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE – CONTEMPT OF COURT – CIVIL CONTEMPT – BREACHES OF COURT ORDERS – BREACHES OF UNDERTAKINGS TO COURT – application seeking committal for contempt of court for failure to comply with undertakings and court orders – application proceeding on charges in respect of which court held case to answer exists – procedural requirements for bringing an application for contempt of court – construction and meaning of orders and undertakings – implication of term – time for compliance with orders – nature and evidence of charges against individual and corporations – compensation and penalty for contempt of court
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 668, r 891, r 898, r 898(2)(a), r 898(2)(c)(i), r 900, r 900(3), r 900(4), r 904, r 925, r 925(a), r 925(1)(a), r 926, r 930, r 931, r 932
Adelaide Corporation v Jennings Industries Ltd (1985) 156 CLR 274, referred to Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v ACN 001 106 Pty Ltd, [2000]
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 Bakir v Doueihi
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Bakir v Doueihi [2002] QSC 19
Case
[2002] QSC 19
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Bakir v Doueihi involved the applicant, Ms Bakir, who brought proceedings against multiple respondents for alleged contempt of court orders. The respondents, who were parties to a prior litigation process, were accused of failing to comply with specific court orders. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute was whether the respondents had contravened the terms of a consent order made by Justice Douglas on 27 July 2001. The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondents had complied with the court's directives regarding the provision of documents and access to assets. The court had to determine whether the respondents' actions constituted contempt of court, specifically in relation to the non-provision of air time reports, the prevention of access to stock, the denial of access to a database, and the obstruction of access to connection contracts.
The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the terms of the consent order to ascertain whether the respondents had indeed failed to comply. It was found that the first, second, and fourth respondents had not provided all copies of air time reports within the stipulated 48-hour period, which constituted contempt. Additionally, the first to sixth respondents were held in contempt for preventing the applicant from taking an equal share of specified stock. However, the first and second respondents were found not guilty of contempt concerning the denial of access to the database. Furthermore, the first to sixth respondents were found to have contravened the order by denying the applicant access to all connection contracts for 30 days from 27 July 2001. The court found that the respondents' actions were deliberate and in direct violation of the court's orders.
In conclusion, the court held that certain respondents were guilty of contempt for failing to comply with specific provisions of the consent order. The court directed the matter be adjourned to allow for further submissions regarding the appropriate penalties, compensation, and costs. The findings of contempt underscored the importance of adherence to court orders and the court's role in ensuring compliance through enforcement mechanisms.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The first, second and fourth respondents are guilty of contempt in that they have not provided all copies of air time reports of service providers to the applicant or her nominees within 48 hours of receipt of the same, thereby contravening the order of the Honourable Justice Douglas made by consent on 27 July 2001.
2.
The first to sixth respondents are guilty of contempt in that they have prevented the applicant from taking an equal share of the stock referred to in paragraph 6(c) of the order of the Honourable Justice Douglas made by consent on 27 July 2001, thereby contravening that order.
3.
The first and second respondents are not guilty of contempt in relation to the charge of denying the applicant access to the database referred to in paragraph 6(d) of the order of the Honourable Justice Douglas made by consent on 27 July 2001.
4.
The first to sixth respondents are guilty of contempt in that they have denied the applicant access to all connection contracts to 13 July 2001 for 30 days from 27 July 2001, thereby contravening the order of the Honourable Justice Douglas made by consent on 27 July 2001.
5.
Matter adjourned to a date to be fixed for the purpose of hearing further submissions as to penalty, compensation and costs.