Clements, Dunne & Bell Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police
Case
•
[2001] FCA 1858
•20 DECEMBER 2001
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Clements, Dunne & Bell Pty Ltd v Commissioner, Australian Federal Police [2001] FCA 1858
[2001] FCA 1858
20 DECEMBER 2001
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Clements, Dunne & Bell Pty Ltd applied to the Federal Court to set aside an order of the Federal Magistrates Court that had found them in contempt of court. The contempt was for breaching an interlocutory injunction that restrained them from publishing certain information. The Commissioner of Australian Federal Police opposed the application. The court was required to determine whether the Federal Magistrates Court's decision to find the applicant in contempt was correct and whether the punishment was appropriate.
The Federal Court found that the Federal Magistrates Court was correct in finding the applicant in contempt of court. The Federal Court considered that the applicant had deliberately breached the interlocutory injunction by publishing the information that they were restrained from publishing. The court held that the punishment of a fine of $10,000 was appropriate given the seriousness of the contempt. The court also noted that the applicant had not raised any grounds for setting aside the contempt order that were sufficient to warrant interference by the Federal Court.
The Federal Court dismissed the application to set aside the contempt order. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceedings. The court also granted leave to the applicant to apply for a variation of the costs order by filing submissions by a specified date. The respondent was to file and serve any submissions in response by a specified date.
The Federal Court found that the Federal Magistrates Court was correct in finding the applicant in contempt of court. The Federal Court considered that the applicant had deliberately breached the interlocutory injunction by publishing the information that they were restrained from publishing. The court held that the punishment of a fine of $10,000 was appropriate given the seriousness of the contempt. The court also noted that the applicant had not raised any grounds for setting aside the contempt order that were sufficient to warrant interference by the Federal Court.
The Federal Court dismissed the application to set aside the contempt order. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceedings. The court also granted leave to the applicant to apply for a variation of the costs order by filing submissions by a specified date. The respondent was to file and serve any submissions in response by a specified date.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Costs
-
Interlocutory Orders
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
FKH v Murrumbidgee Local Health District [2023] NSWCATAD 313
Cases Citing This Decision
12
FKH v Murrumbidgee Local Health District
[2023] NSWCATAD 313
Rollex Group (2010) Ltd v Chaffers Group Ltd
[2012] NZHC 1332
Lock, in the matter of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liq)
[2017] FCA 1306
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
0
Grant v Downs
[1976] HCA 63
Grant v Downs
[1976] HCA 63
Grant v Downs
[1976] HCA 63