Guthrie, T.J. v Robertson, M

[1987] FCA 176

C A T C H W O R D S

TRADE PRACTICES - Part V contraventions - enforcement.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - discovery in aid of execution.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, 5 5 . 4 , 53.

Federal Court Rules, 0 . 3 7 r . 7 , 0 . 3 7 r . 8 .

The Rules of the Supreme Court (Qld.) 0.47 r.33

f

TERENCE JAMES GUTHRIE V. MICHAEL ROBERTSON

QLD. NO.G54 of 1986.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1
I

QUEENSLAND	DISTRICT	REGISTRY	1	QLD. G54 of 1986
1

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN :

TERENCE JAMES GUTHRIE

Prosecutor

m:

MICHAEL ROBERTSON

Defendant

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE FLWIMG ORDER:	SPENDER J.
DATE OF ORDER:	26 MARCH 1987.
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Michael Robertson attend and be orally

exammed as to whether he has any, and

what other property means or of

satisfying judgment, before the Registrar

of the Federal Court of Australia, 27th

level M.L.C. Building, at 10.30 a.m. on

Monday, 11 May 1987.

2. The said Michael Robertson produce all

his books, bank statements, aving

accounts, share certificates, and other

documents relating to his financial

position before the said Registrar at the

time of that examination.

3 . Costs on the application be reserved.

NOTE:

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36

of the Federal Court Rules.

I

3

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

I	QUEENSLAND	DISTRICT	EGISTRY	)	QLD. G54 of 1986
)

DIVISION GENERAL 1

i

BFIIWEEN :

TERENCE JAMES GUTHRIE

Prosecutor

AND:

MICHAEL ROBERTSON

I

i	Defendant
!	l
I
i	I

DATE OF W I N G : 24 MARCH 1987.

1

24 MARCH 1987

! DATE JUDGMENT DELIVERED:

APPEARANCES :

for the prosecutor	Ms. C. Barker of the Office
of the Dlrector of Public

! Prosecutions.

T. MACDERMOTT

ASSOCIATE TO SPENDER J.

I

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY 1 QLD. G54 of 1986

- 1

GENERAL DIVISION ' 1

BETWEEN:

TERENCE JIlMES GUTHRIE

Prosecutor

m:

I MICHAEL ROBERTSON

Defendant

SPENDER J.

BRISBANE

27 MARCH 1987.

M TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This application concerns enforcement of orders of the

Court

On 12 November 1986, in respect of a number of

contraventions of Part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974, I

convicted the defendant, Michael Robertson, of 21 informations

alleging contraventions of ss.53A and 56(1) of the Act.

In respect of each of those contraventions, I ordered

that he be fined $1.000.00 and the total of those fines, namely

!

2 .

$21.000.00, be paid to the Distrlct Registrar at Brisbane

forthwith. I also ordered that he pay the prosecutor’s costs of

and incidental to all of those matters, such costs to	be limited
to those incurred on or before 2; October 1986.

Mr. Terence James Guthrie, the Assistant Director of

Consumer Protection, Trade Practices Commission, deposes to the

fact that no amounts have been paid to the District Reglstrar by

Mr. Robertson In respect of any of the fines which I ordered.

,	i	The	pr sent	application	seeks	orders	that	Mr. Robertson
1

attend and be orally examined as to whether and what debts are

I	owing to h m and whether he has any and what other property or
means of satisfying ~udqment before the Registrar at such time
!
i	and place as he may appolnt and that the sald Mlchael Robertson
l
I	produce all hls books, bank statements, savmgs accounts, share
I	certlflcates and other documents relating to his financial
position before the said Registrar at he time of the
examlnation.

The application 1 s essentially an application for

discovery in aid of execution. The contraventions in respect of

which the fines were imposed occurred prior to the commencement

of s.79A of the Act which came lnto force on 1 June 1986 end

which deals directly with the question of enforcement of fines

imposed for contraventions of certain provisions of the Act.

Section 4 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976

provides, inter alia:-

"'Judgment' means a judgment, decree or order,

I whether final or interlocutory, or a sentence."

Section 53 of that Act provides:-

r

"(1) Sublect to the Rules of Court, a person in

whose favour a judgment of the Court is given is entitled to the same remedies for enforcement of

the judgment in a State or Territory, by execution

or otherwise, as are allowed in like cases by the

laws of that State or Territory to persons in

whose favour a ]udgment of the Supreme Court of

that State or Territory is given.

( 2 ) Thls section does not affect the operation of

any provision made by or under any other Act or by

the Rules of Court for the xecution and

enforcement of judgments of the Court. I'

Order 37, rule 7 of the Federal Court Rules provides:-

"(1) Subject to the Rules, and wlthout limiting

any other means of enforcement whlch may be

available, the Court may, in order to enforce a

judgment o r order of the Court, make any order,

issue any writ or take any other step that could be made, issued or taken by the Supreme Court of

the State or Territory in which the judgment or

order is to be enforced if the judgment o r order

had been made by that Supreme Court.

( 2 ) The modes of procedure and forms of process

of the Supreme Court of the State or Territory In enforced shall be available and followed in the Court so far as is practicable mutatis mutandis for the enforcement of orders of the Court."

which the judgment or order is sought to be

Order 37, rule 8 of those Rules provides:-

"A party interested in the execution or enforcement

of an order may apply to the Court ex parte for

directions as to its execution or enforcement."

The present application is made ex parte.

4 .

Order 47, rule 33 of the The Rules of the Supreme Court

(Qld.) provides:-

"When a judgment or order is given or made for the

l payment of money, the party entitled to enforce it

may apply ex parte to the Court or a Judge for an

order that the debtor liable under such judgment

or order, or, in the case of a corporation or

company, or other body of persons empowered by law

to sue or be sued, whether in its own name or in

the name of any officer or other person, that any

officer thereof be orally examlned before a Judge

or an officer of the Court as the Court or Judge

may appoint, as to whether any and what debts are

l	owing to the debtor and whether the debtor has any
and what other property or means of satisfying the
judgment or order; and the Court or Judge may make
an order for the attendance and the examination of
such debtor, or of such officer, and for the
production by hlm of any books r documents."

I In my opinlon, this chain of statutory provisions

applles to the present circumstances.

It is obviously crucial to the efficiency of the court's

process that Its orders be obeyed, and the court should be astute

to lend whatever assistance	It	can to enable Its orders to be
enforced.

Thls is an appropriate case for the making of the order

sought by the notice of motion.

I therefore order that Michael Robertson attend and be

orally examined as to whether he has any, and what other property

or means of satisfying judgment, before the Registrar of the

Federal Court of Australia, 27th level M.L.C. Building, at 10.30

a.m. on Monday, 11 May 1907.

5.

I further order that the said Michael Robertson produce

all his books, bank statements, saving accounts, share

certificates, and other documents relating to his financial

position before the said Registrar at the time of that

examination.

I reserve the question of costs of this application.

I certify that this and the pioced:ng

pages are a true copy of the reasons for

!	judgment herein of His Honour
Mr Justice Spender: cas
I
I