Fitts v Froome - [2001] NSWSC 965

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION: Fitts v Froome [2001] NSWSC 965

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): 3299/01

HEARING DATE{S): 17/10/01

JUDGMENT DATE: 31/10/2001

PARTIES:
Registrar in Equity - Applicant
Lindsay Froome & Craig Froome t/as Froome Consulting - First Respondent/Defendant
Froome Consulting Pty Ltd - Second Respondent/Defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
Mr D. Cowan - Applicant
Mr T.J. Moore - Respondents

SOLICITORS:
State Crown Solicitor - Applicant
Hovan & Co - Respondents

CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE - Contempt, attachment and sequestration - non-compliance with orders of court - need to prove alleged contemnor's knowledge of content and meaning of orders - not relevant that order said to be by consent not consented to by alleged contemnor - not relevant that alleged contemnor not directly involved in relevant events

ACTS CITED:

DECISION:
Each of Mr C. Froome and Mr L. Froome guilty of contempt of court

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BARRETT J

WEDNESDAY, 31 OCTOBER 2001

3299/01 – FITTS & ANOR v LINDSAY FROOME and CRAIG FROOME T/AS FROOME CONSULTING & ANOR

JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR:

By notice of motion filed on 2 August 2001 in accordance with a direction made by Palmer J on that day pursuant to Part 55 rule 11(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, the Registrar in Equity has applied for orders that Mr Craig Froome, Mr Lindsay Froome and Froome Consulting Pty Ltd be punished for contempt of Court in that they failed to comply with certain orders made on 24 July 2001. The application is supported by an affidavit of Senior Deputy Registrar Robinson sworn on 21 September 2001.

The Registrar’s application in relation to Mr C. Froome and Mr L. Froome was heard by me on 17 October 2001 when Mr D. Cowan instructed by the Crown Solicitor appeared for the Registrar as applicant and Mr T. Moore instructed by Hovan & Co appeared for Mr C. Froome and Mr L. Froome. Mr C. Froome pleaded guilty to the charge of contempt while Mr L. Froome pleaded not guilty.

The orders of the Court to which the charges relate were made by Registrar Berecry on 24 July 2001 and entered that day. The orders were as follows:
“1. The Defendants lodge the sum of $200,000.00 with the Supreme Court by 5pm on 31st July 2001.
2. The Defendants file and serve an affidavit conforming with the terms covered by Order 3 of Santow, J of 19 June 2001 by 5pm on 31st July 2001.”
These orders were made in accordance with short minutes in which they were expressed to be orders by consent. The short minutes carried the signatures of counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Fitts, and counsel for the defendants, being all of the present respondents. Order 2 set out above refers to the following order made by Santow J on 19 June 2001 and entered that…

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 Fitts v Froome

Details

AGLC: Fitts v Froome [2001] NSWSC 965
Case: [2001] NSWSC 965
Decision Date: 31 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the court was between Fitts and Froome, regarding allegations of contempt by Froome for non-compliance with court orders. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the alleged contemnor, Froome, had knowledge of the content and meaning of the orders in question, and whether it was necessary to prove that the orders were consented to by Froome, or that he was directly involved in the events relevant to the orders.

The court held that it was not necessary to prove that Froome had consented to the orders or that he was directly involved in the relevant events. The court found that it was sufficient to prove that Froome had knowledge of the content and meaning of the orders, and that he had failed to comply with them. The court held that the fact that the orders were said to be by consent did not mean that Froome had actually consented to them, and that it was not necessary to prove that he had been directly involved in the events relevant to the orders.

The court found that Froome had been in contempt of court for failing to comply with the orders, and ordered him to pay costs. The court held that it was not necessary to prove that Froome had been directly involved in the relevant events, or that he had consented to the orders, in order to find him in contempt. The court held that it was sufficient to prove that Froome had knowledge of the content and meaning of the orders, and that he had failed to comply with them.

The final orders of the court were that Froome was in contempt of court, and that he was to pay costs. The court held that it was not necessary to prove that Froome had been directly involved in the relevant events, or that he had consented to the orders, in order to find him in contempt. The court held that it was sufficient to prove that Froome had knowledge of the content and meaning of the orders, and that he had failed to comply with them.

Orders