Chan v Chen (No 3)

In the Federal Court of Australia, Chan initiated proceedings against Chen in a dispute involving alleged breaches of Mareva injunctions. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalties for the contempt of court committed by Chen and whether it had the authority to order Chen's committal until payment of fines, despite Chen's non-compliance with Rule 66.10. The central issue was whether the court's power under Rule 75.11(3) to order committal could be exercised without regard to the procedural requirement of Rule 66.10.

The court examined the interplay between Rules 75.11(3) and 66.10, considering the overarching aim of enforcing compliance with court orders. It assessed the necessity and proportionality of ordering committal in light of the contempt committed and the potential deterrent effect on future non-compliance. The court found that the power under Rule 75.11(3) to order committal was not contingent upon compliance with Rule 66.10, provided that the court's decision was balanced and just. The court imposed fines on Chen and ordered his committal until payment of the fines, concluding that the imposition of committal was an appropriate and necessary measure to ensure compliance with the court's orders.

The court's decision was grounded in the principle of maintaining the authority and integrity of the court. It emphasised that the contempt of court must be met with a proportionate response to uphold the rule of law and deter similar breaches in the future. The court determined that the fines and committal order were necessary to ensure compliance and to send a clear message regarding the consequences of non-compliance with court injunctions. The orders were made accordingly.