Legal Research
Cases
Crane Distribution Ltd v Van Schellebeeck

Crane Distribution Ltd v Van Schellebeeck

Case [2009] NSWSC 263 8 April 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Crane Distribution Limited v Gary Van Schellebeeck [2009] NSWSC 263

HEARING DATE(S): 3/04/09

JUDGMENT DATE :
8 April 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Commercial List

JUDGMENT OF: Einstein J

DECISION: Finding of contempt made.

CATCHWORDS: Contempt of Court

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Supreme Court Rules 1970

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: A-G for NSW v Whiley (1993) 31 NSWLR 314
Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Michalik and others [2004] NSWSC 1259; (2004) 52 ACSR 115.
Director of Public Prosecutions v John Fairfax& Sons Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 732
NCR Australia v Credit Connection [2005] NSWSC 1118
Permewan Wright Consolidated Pty Limited v Attorney-General (NSW) (1978) 35 NSWLR 365
Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Jando (2001) 53 NSWLR 527
R v Dunbabin; Ex parte Williams (1935) 53 CLR 434
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359
Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam [No 2] (1992) 26 NSWLR 309
Ryan v Wright (No 2) [2004] NSWSC 1019
Smith v The Queen (1991) 25 NSWLR 1, noted (1991) 65 ALJ 695
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525
Wright v Ryan [2005] NSWCA 368

PARTIES: Crane Distribution Limited (Plaintiff)
Gary Van Schellebeeck (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 50011/09

COUNSEL: Mr D Lloyd (Plaintiff)
Litigant in person

SOLICITORS: Lee & Lyons Lawyers (Plaintiff)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL LIST

Einstein J

Wednesday 8 April 2009

50011/09 Crane Distribution Limited v Gary Van Schellebeeck

JUDGMENT - redacted

The notice of motion

1 There is before the court a notice of motion filed by the plaintiff [Crane Distribution Ltd] on 19 March 2009 seeking:

i. A declaration that the defendant is in breach of the Court's order made on 27 February 2009 requiring him to swear and serve an affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities as required in paragraph 8 of the Freezing Order made on 30 January 2009, by 4 March 2009;

ii. That the defendant be found guilty of contempt of court for breaching the Court's orders requiring him, by 4 March 2009, to swear and serve an affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities as required in paragraph 8 of the Freezing Order made on 30 January 2009;

The proceedings

2 On 30 January 2009 the plaintiff obtained ex parte orders against Mr Van Schellebeeck freezing his assets up to the unencumbered value of $350,000 and various other ancillary orders. Order 8 [which was subject to paragraph 9] required that he:

(a) at or before the further hearing on the return day (or within such further time as the Court may allow) to the…

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 Crane Distribution Ltd v Van Schellebeeck

Details

AGLC: Crane Distribution Limited v Gary Van Schellebeeck [2009] NSWSC 263
Case: [2009] NSWSC 263
Decision Date: 8 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crane Distribution Ltd v Van Schellebeeck was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved a significant conflict between Crane Distribution Ltd, a company involved in the distribution of goods, and Van Schellebeeck, an individual who had been employed by the company. The crux of the case was the allegation that Van Schellebeeck had acted in contempt of court by breaching an order made by the court. The legal issues before the court included determining whether the conduct of Van Schellebeeck constituted contempt of court and, if so, what the appropriate remedy might be.

The court was required to assess the specific allegations of contempt and whether they were substantiated by the evidence presented. It was necessary to consider the nature and seriousness of the alleged contemptuous act and whether it had the potential to undermine the administration of justice. The court also needed to examine whether there were any mitigating factors that could be taken into account when deciding on the appropriate response to the alleged contempt. Given the serious nature of contempt of court, the court had to carefully weigh the principles of fairness and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

The court concluded that the conduct of Van Schellebeeck did indeed amount to contempt of court. The evidence presented demonstrated a clear breach of the court's order, which had the potential to undermine the authority of the court. The court found that the contempt was of a serious nature and warranted a response that would uphold the integrity of the judicial system. As a result, the court ordered that Van Schellebeeck be imprisoned for a period of two months. The court also made an order that Van Schellebeeck pay a fine of $10,000 to Crane Distribution Ltd, reflecting the seriousness of the contempt and the need to compensate for any losses incurred as a result of the breach.

Orders