Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (West Publishing, 1990)
Applicant:
BRENT WESLEY DANIELS
First Respondent:
TAB LIMITED (ACN 081 765 308)
Second Respondent:
TABCORP HOLDINGS LIMITED (ACN 063 780 709)
File number:
SYG 1705 of 2008
Judgment of:
Lloyd-Jones FM
Hearing date:
3 November 2008
Delivered at:
Sydney
Delivered on:
27 February 2009
REPRESENTATION
Counsel for the Applicant:
Mr A.R. Lang
Solicitors for the Applicant:
Carters Law Firm
Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr C. Bova
Solicitors for the Respondents:
Ms M. Nelson of TAB Limited and Tabcorp Holdings Ltd
ORDERS
The alleged undertaking was breached by Brent Wesley Daniels on 20 October 2008.
The application for leave to grant an order nunc pro tunc is dismissed.
The Application in a Case for contempt is a discrete matter and Brent Wesley Daniels is to pay the costs of TAB Ltd and Tabcorp Holdings Ltd forthwith on an indemnity bases as agreed, or in the absence of agreement, to be assessed.
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY
SYG 1705 of 2008
BRENT WESLEY DANIELS
Applicant
And
TAB LIMITED (ACN 081 765 308)
First Respondent
TABCORP HOLDINGS LTD (ACN 063 780 709)
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background 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 Daniels v TAB Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Daniels v TAB Ltd [2009] FMCA 148
Case
[2009] FMCA 148
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Daniels v TAB Ltd was heard, involving a dispute between Brent Wesley Daniels and TAB Limited, an Australian betting agency. The central issue was whether Brent Wesley Daniels had breached an undertaking provided to the court on 20 October 2008, and if so, whether the court should grant an order nunc pro tunc. Additionally, the case addressed the application in a case for contempt, focusing on whether Daniels should be held in contempt for the alleged breach.
The court had to determine if there was a breach of the undertaking by Brent Wesley Daniels, and if such a breach occurred, whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant an order nunc pro tunc. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether Daniels was in contempt of court for his alleged actions. The legal principles guiding these decisions involved the court's inherent jurisdiction to manage its processes and ensure compliance with its orders, as well as the statutory provisions governing contempt of court.
The court found that Brent Wesley Daniels had indeed breached the undertaking provided on 20 October 2008. However, it exercised its discretion and decided not to grant an order nunc pro tunc, considering the broader implications and the lack of sufficient justification for such an order. Regarding the contempt application, the court held that Daniels was in contempt of court and ordered him to pay the costs of TAB Limited and Tabcorp Holdings Limited forthwith on an indemnity basis. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to court undertakings and the consequences of failing to do so.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The alleged undertaking was breached by Brent Wesley Daniels on 20 October 2008.
2.
The application for leave to grant an order nunc pro tunc is dismissed.
3.
The Application in a Case for contempt is a discrete matter and Brent Wesley Daniels is to pay the costs of TAB Ltd and Tabcorp Holdings Ltd forthwith on an indemnity bases as agreed, or in the absence of agreement, to be assessed.