Legal Research
Cases
D B Mahaffy & Associates v Mahaffy

D B Mahaffy & Associates v Mahaffy

Link copied

Case Copied 16 February 2015 82 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: D B Mahaffy & Associates v Mahaffy [2015] NSWSC 66
Hearing dates: 29 September 2014
Date of orders: 16 February 2015
Decision date: 16 February 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
(1)Charges 2, 3, 4, 10 and 12 of the Further Amended Statement of Charge filed 23 April 2013 be dismissed.
(2)Charges 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 13 of the Further Amended Statement of Charge filed 23 April 2013 are to be listed for further hearing as to penalty.
(3)The matter is listed for directions at 9:30 am on 2 March 2015.
Catchwords:
CONTEMPT OF COURT – procedure – notice of motion - alleged contempt - breach of Court orders - contempt charges where money orders are not complied with - contempt charges for behaviour in court regarding words spoken, or otherwise written and filed, in court - contempt charges for deliberate failure to comply with a subpoena - contempt charges for reneging on an agreement underpinning a consent order

PROCEDURE – contempt of court - adjournment– informal and unsupported adjournment application - refused
PROCEDURE – contempt of court - notice of motions – orders seeking that the case be thrown out with costs and hearing dates be vacated – no appearance – no basis for adjournment - motions dismissed for want of prosecution
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 46; (1986) 161 CLR 98
Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan [1965] HCA 21; (1965) 112 CLR 483
Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 18; (1999) 198 CLR 380
Commissioner for Fair Trading v Rixon (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 431
D B Mahaffy & Associates Pty Limited v Mahaffy (District Court (NSW), McLoughlin J, 4 September 2009, unrep)
D B Mahaffy & Associates Pty Ltd v J R Mahaffy [2010] NSWCA 341
D B Mahaffy & Associates Pty Ltd v Jeffrey Mahaffy [2011] NSWSC 1643
D B Mahaffy & Associates Pty Ltd v Mahaffy [2013] NSWSC 1863
D B Mahaffy & Associates Pty Ltd v Mahaffy [2014] NSWSC 307
Iberian Trust Limited v Founders Trust Limited [1932] 2 KB 87
Kenneth James Baker v Anthony Christopher Paul [2012] NSWSC 392
Mahaffy v Mahaffy (Court of Appeal (NSW), Handley AJA, 26 October 2010, unrep)
Mahaffy v Mahaffy [2010] NSWSC 1358
Mahaffy v Mahaffy [2013] NSWSC 245
Markisic v the Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2007] NSWCA 92; (2007) 69 NSWLR 737
Matthews v ASIC [2009] NSWCA 155
Roskott v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] NSWCA 341
Sigalla v TZ Limited [2011] NSWCA 334
ZHU v Treasurer of NSW [2004] HCA 56; (2004) 218 CLR 530
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: D B Mahaffy & Associates (Plaintiff)
Jeffrey Mahaffy (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr J Mahaffy, unrepresented (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2010/119143
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

By notice of motion filed in 2010 in the Court of Appeal, the defendant, Mr…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read D B Mahaffy & Associates v Mahaffy and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWSC 66
Decision Date: 16 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of D B Mahaffy & Associates v Mahaffy was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute primarily concerned allegations of contempt of court against Mr. Mahaffy, arising from his alleged failure to comply with several court orders. These orders included monetary payments and adherence to a consent agreement. The proceedings also alleged that Mr. Mahaffy exhibited inappropriate conduct during court proceedings. The court was tasked with determining whether Mr. Mahaffy's actions constituted contempt of court, and if so, to what extent and what remedies should be applied.

The court had to address several legal issues, including the interpretation and enforcement of the original court orders, the procedural requirements for initiating and maintaining contempt of court proceedings, and the criteria for dismissing motions due to lack of prosecution. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the notice of motions filed against Mr. Mahaffy were properly substantiated and if the alleged contempt warranted the severe consequences sought by the applicant. Furthermore, the court had to examine whether the adjournment requests made by Mr. Mahaffy were justified and if they complied with the procedural requirements of the court.

The court found that the contempt proceedings against Mr. Mahaffy were not adequately substantiated. It dismissed the motions for lack of prosecution, noting that there was no appearance by the applicant to support the allegations. The court highlighted that the notice of motions did not provide sufficient grounds to proceed with the contempt charges. Additionally, the court rejected the adjournment applications, deeming them informal and unsupported. Consequently, the court ruled that the contempt charges were not properly brought before it and dismissed the motions, resulting in no further action being taken against Mr. Mahaffy regarding the alleged contempt. The court also vacated the hearing dates previously set for the contempt proceedings.

Orders