Legal Research
Cases
Global Custodians Ltd v Mesh

Global Custodians Ltd v Mesh

Case [2000] NSWSC 845 28 August 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Global Custodians Ltd v Mesh [2000] NSWSC 845

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2539/98; 3156/99

HEARING DATE(S): 04/08/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 28 August 2000

PARTIES :

Global Custodians Limited (P)
Pamela Ann Mesh and Helen Chuproff (D1 & 2)
Hari Bhagat (D3)

JUDGMENT OF: Young J

COUNSEL : G C Lindsay SC and R F Margo (P)
L Robinson (D1 & 2)
Third defendant in person

SOLICITORS: Holding Redlich (P)
Third defendant in person

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE [683]- Contempt- Intimidating prospective plaintiff- Whether contempt- Element of intention- How satisfied.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, s 131
Supreme Court Act 1970, s 84

CASES CITED: Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273
Re B [1965] Ch 1112
Bentley v Nelson [1963] WAR 89
Clyne v NSW Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Preston [1981] 2 NSWLR 554
Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis (1974) 131 CLR 311
In re Daintrey; Ex parte Holt [1893] 2 QB 116
Ebert v Venvil [1999] 3 WLR 670
Gregory v Philip Morris Ltd (1987) 74 ALR 300
Re Mulock (1864) 3 Sw & Tr 599; 164 ER 1407
Smith v Lakeman (1856) 26 LJ Ch 305
Willshire-Smith v Votino Bros Pty Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 496

DECISION: See para 40

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG J
MONDAY 28 AUGUST 2000
2539/98 - GLOBAL CUSTODIANS LTD v MESH
3156/99 - GLOBAL CUSTODIANS LTD v MESH
JUDGMENT
1    HIS HONOUR: In each of these matters I am hearing a notice of motion in virtually identical form which seeks essentially the following order:

“The third defendant, Mr Hari Bhagat be found guilty of contempt of this Court for attempting by way of threats and intimidation to deter and obstruct Mr Arch and Mrs Norma Greenlees and Mr Jack and Mrs Jessie Speight from continuing to consent to being joined as Plaintiffs in these proceedings and to induce them to withdraw that consent.”

2    The background of the motions is that the third defendant organised a fighting fund to mount litigation against the plaintiff and others in respect of the administration of funds known as the “Estate Mortgage Investment Funds”. There are about 15 actions commenced by the third defendant making those challenges.
3    The present actions are a counter-attack by the present plaintiff. The first two defendants are trustees of the Estate Mortgage Fighting Trust Fund. The plaintiff considers that because of an assignment it says it has taken from Mr and Mrs Greenlees and Mr and Mrs Speight, it is entitled to inspect the books of the Estate Mortgage Fighting Trust Fund.
4    In a judgment which I gave on 25 June 1999 I held that without at least the joinder of the Greenlees and the Speights, the action by Global Custodians Limited should fail. There is currently an application for amendment in proceedings 2539/98 to add these parties. This, Mr Bhagat is strenuously resisting.
5    There is no doubt at all that on…

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 Global Custodians Ltd v Mesh

Details

AGLC: Global Custodians Ltd v Mesh [2000] NSWSC 845
Case: [2000] NSWSC 845
Decision Date: 28 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Global Custodians Limited brought an action against Mesh, a former employee, regarding the misuse of confidential information. The dispute centred on whether Mesh had engaged in conduct that amounted to contempt of court by intimidating a prospective plaintiff who was considering legal action against Global Custodians. The key legal issue before the court was whether Mesh's actions constituted contempt of court, particularly focusing on whether there was an intention to interfere with the administration of justice and whether this intention was satisfied. The court examined the evidence presented to determine if Mesh's actions could be characterised as contempt, given the serious implications such a finding would have on the freedom of individuals to engage in lawful conduct.

The court determined that for conduct to be considered contempt of court, it must be shown that the defendant had the requisite intention to interfere with the administration of justice. In this case, the court needed to assess whether Mesh intended to intimidate the prospective plaintiff in a manner that could be seen as obstructing the course of justice. The court considered the nature of the communications between Mesh and the prospective plaintiff, the context in which they occurred, and whether these actions could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to influence the prospective plaintiff's decision to pursue legal action. The court concluded that, while Mesh's actions were improper, they did not meet the threshold of contempt as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the requisite intention to interfere with the administration of justice.

Based on its findings, the court ruled that Mesh's conduct did not amount to contempt of court. The court dismissed the application, highlighting the importance of the intention element in contempt cases. It was clear that the court was cautious in finding contempt, emphasising the need for a high level of intent to interfere with judicial proceedings. The decision underscores the careful consideration required when determining whether actions amount to contempt, particularly in cases involving alleged intimidation of prospective plaintiffs.

Orders