Legal Research
Cases
Bakir v Doueihi

Bakir v Doueihi

Case [2001] QSC 414 6 November 2001

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Bakir v Doueihi & Ors [2001] QSC 414

PARTIES: RONNY MUHUDDINE BAKIR
(plaintiff/first respondent)
v
JEAN DARK DOUEIHI
(first defendant/applicant)
CRAZY RON’S PTY LTD (ACN 081 277 161)
(second defendant/second respondent)
CRAZY RON’S MOBILE PHONES PTY LTD
(ACN 083 358 114)
(third defendant/third respondent)
PORTVISTA PTY LTD (ACN 876 714 033)
(fourth defendant/fourth respondent) AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS PTY LTD (ACN 085 169 106)
(fifth defendant/fifth respondent)
CRAZY RON’S COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 093 598 479)
(sixth defendant/sixth respondent) FILE NO/S: 6124 of 2000

DIVISION: Trial

PROCEEDING: Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 6 November 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 24 – 26 October 2001

JUDGES: Atkinson J

ORDER: There is no case to answer with regard to:

(1) paragraphs 1(b), and 2, 3 and 4 with regard to the breach alleged in paragraph 1(b);
(2) paragraphs 5(d), (e), and 6, 7 and 8 with regard to the breaches alleged in paragraphs 5(d) and (e);
(3) paragraphs 9(a), 10, 11 and 12 (with regard to the third, fifth and sixth respondents);
(4) paragraphs 17(a), 18, 19 and 20;
(5) paragraphs 21(a), 22, 23 and 24 (with regard to the fourth and fifth respondents);
2

(6) paragraphs 25(a), 26, 27, 28;
(7) paragraph 29 (with regard to paragraph 1(b), 5(d)
and (e));
(8) paragraph 30 (with regard to the allegation in paragraph 9(a) against the third, fifth and sixth respondents);
(9) paragraphs 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the application.
It follows that there is a case to answer on:
(1) paragraphs 1(a), and 2, 3, and 4 with regard to the breach alleged in paragraph 1(a);
(2) paragraphs 5(a), (b), (c), and 6, 7 and 8 with regard to the breaches alleged in paragraphs 5(a), (b) and
(c);
(3) paragraphs 9(a), 10, 11 and 12 (with regard to the second and fourth respondents);
(4) paragraphs 13, 13(a), (b), 14, 15, 16;
(5) paragraphs 21(a) and 22, 23 and 24 (with regard to the second respondents).
(6) The allegations in paragraphs 29 and 30 will be restricted to breaches for which there is a case to answer.

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 – nature and history of contempt of court generally – form and contents of orders and undertakings – enforcement of money and non-money orders by contempt proceedings – whether case to answer in respect of alleged charges

Property Law Act 1974, s 286, s 286(1), s 286(4)
Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 925, r 925(1)(a), r 926, r 926(1), r 926(1)(a), r 794, r 891, r 897, r 898, r 898(2)(a), r 898(2)(c)(I), r 900, r 900(1)(c)(i), r 904, r 917

3

Associated Alloys v ACN 001 452 106 P/L [2000] HCA 25,
11 May 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

Details

AGLC: Bakir v Doueihi [2001] QSC 414
Case: [2001] QSC 414
Decision Date: 06 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court was required to determine whether the respondents had breached certain undertakings and orders made by consent in the proceedings between the parties. The court had to decide whether the charges of contempt brought by Jean Doueihi against the other parties were sustainable. The legal issues involved determining the nature and enforceability of the orders and undertakings, whether the charges were properly particularised, and whether the evidence supported the alleged breaches.

The court held that there was no case to answer with regard to certain charges, including those related to the alleged failure to pay $15,252.96, provide airtime reports, comply with orders concerning the stock, database, connection contracts, and commissions. However, there was a case to answer with regard to other charges, including the alleged failure to provide airtime reports within 48 hours, provide access to the database and connection contracts, and pay commissions and airtime commissions.

The court found that the particulars provided were adequate for the charges of contempt. The court also held that the orders and undertakings were clear and enforceable. The evidence showed that the respondents had deliberately breached certain obligations under the orders, such as providing access to the database and connection contracts, and paying the applicant her share of the commissions. The court concluded that there was a case to answer on the charges of contempt in these respects.

The final orders of the court were that there was no case to answer on certain charges, but there was a case to answer on others. The allegations in the charges that were dismissed would be restricted to breaches for which there was a case to answer.

Orders