Goldspring v Jordan

Case [2024] NSWCA 158

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Goldspring v Jordan [2024] NSWCA 158
Hearing dates: 16 June 2024
Date of orders: 01 July 2024
Decision date: 01 July 2024
Before: Bell CJ at [1];
Leeming JA at [94];
Harrison JA at [95].
Decision:

1.   Order that the time for filing a Notice of Appeal be extended to 7 March 2024.

2.   Order that orders 1(a), 3(a) and 5(a) of the orders made by Henry J on 29 January 2024 be varied as follows:

“(1)     Peter Michael Goldspring is in contempt of this Court by failing to comply with orders made by Hallen J on 24 June 2020 (Hallen J’s Orders) by:

(a)      failing to produce the Macquarie Share Portfolio Account XXXX 9329 (Macquarie Share Account) statements, as referred to in paragraph 11(d) of the Amended Statement of Charge relating to Hallen J’s Orders annexed to the Amended Motion;

           …

(3)   Mark Andrew Goldspring is in contempt of this Court by failing to comply with Hallen J’s Orders by:

(a)      failing to produce the Macquarie Share Account statements, as referred to in paragraph 11(d) of the Amended Statement of Charge relating to Hallen J’s Orders annexed to the Amended Motion;

           …

(5)   Marianne Evelyn Goodchild is in contempt of this Court by failing to comply with Hallen J’s Orders by:

(a)      failing to produce the Macquarie Share Account statements, as referred to in paragraph 11(d) of the Amended Statement of Charge relating to Hallen J’s Orders annexed to the Amended Motion;

           …”

3.   Otherwise dismiss the appeal with costs.

Catchwords:

CONTEMPT – Civil contempt – Breach of orders – Non-production – whether charges drafted with sufficient particularity to provide the Appellants with a fair hearing – whether findings of civil contempt proven beyond a reasonable doubt – whether documents existed or were in the custody, power or possession of the Appellants – whether primary judge erred in making findings that did not reflect the Statement of Charge – power of the Court to make any order which ought to have been made pursuant to s 75A(10) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) ss 75A(1), 101(5)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 51.16(1)(c)

Cases Cited:

Ford v Princehorn [2012] NSWSC 1165

Hancock v Reinhart [2015] NSWSC 646

New South Wales Bar Association v Muirhead (1988) 14 NSWLR 173

Torlonia v Wright [2016] NSWSC 1139

Texts Cited:

H Ford and W Lee, Principles of the Law of Trust (3rd ed, 1995, Law Book Co.)

R Geddes, C Rowland and P Studdert, Wills, Probate and Administration Law in New South Wales (1st ed, 1996, LBC Information Services)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Michael Goldspring (First Appellant)
Mark Andrew Goldspring (Second Appellant)
Marianne Evelyn Goodchild (Third Appellant)
Katherine Mary Jordan (First Respondent)
Rhonda Fay Thomas (Second Respondent)
Lynette June Goldspring (Third Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:

D Allen (First, Second and Third Appellants)
P Wallis (Second and Third Respondents)

Solicitors:

Shaba & Thomas Lawyers…

Continue reading Goldspring v Jordan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Goldspring v Jordan [2024] NSWCA 158
Case
[2024] NSWCA 158
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Goldspring v Jordan concerned an appeal from findings of civil contempt made by Hallen J. The appellants, Goldspring and others, were found to have breached orders made by Hallen J, specifically concerning the non-production of documents. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the charges of contempt were sufficiently particularised to allow the appellants a fair hearing and whether the existence or possession of the alleged documents had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether the charges of civil contempt were drafted with sufficient particularity to afford the appellants a fair hearing, and whether the findings of contempt were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Further issues concerned whether the documents in question existed or were within the custody, power, or possession of the appellants, and whether the primary judge had erred by making findings that did not align with the Statement of Charge. The Court also considered its power to make any order which ought to have been made under s 75A(10) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW).

Bell CJ, Leeming and Harrison JJA addressed the appellants' submission that the contempt charge alleged a single breach, requiring all sub-paragraphs of paragraph 11 of the Statement of Charge to be established. The Court clarified that the use of the plural "orders" in the charge indicated it concerned multiple individual breaches of specific orders made by Hallen J, rather than a single, overarching breach. This interpretation was crucial to the Court's assessment of whether the charges were sufficiently particularised and whether the evidence supported findings of contempt for each alleged breach.

Orders

Orders of the court

…”. The use of the plural “orders” made it clear that the paragraph was concerned with multiple individual breaches of particular orders of Hallen J. Contrary to one of the Appellants’ submissions, the charge was not alleging a single breach with the consequence that all sub-paragraphs (a)-(k) of paragraph 11 needed to be established in order for the charge to be made out.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.