Indigenous Business Australia v Schofield

[2017] ACTSC 56

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Indigenous Business Australia v Schofield

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 56

Submissions Date:

23 February 2017

DecisionDate:

Reasons Date:

16 March 2017

22 March 2017

Before:

Refshauge J

Decision:

1.     That the order of 12 April 2016 be amended by omitting the figures “382” in the definition of “North Terrace Property” and substituting “802”.

2.     That there be no order as to costs.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Amended orders – inherent jurisdiction of the Court – amendment of a consent order

Legislation Cited:

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 18

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 1611, 6906

Cases Cited:

Harvey v Phillips (1956) 95 CLR 235

Mercer Alloys Corporation v Rolls Royce Ltd [1972] 1 All ER 211
Permanent Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd v Stocks & Holdings (Canberra) Pty Ltd (1976) 15 ACTR 45
R v Carmody (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 25
The Owners of Units Plan No 932 v Marhaba [2017] ACTSC 13
Thynne v Thynne [1955] P 272
VTAG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 91; 141 FCR 291

Westpac Banking Corporation v Chamberlain [2016] SASC 3

Parties:

Indigenous Business Australia (Plaintiff)

Nicholas Schofield (Defendant)

Representation:

Solicitors

Australian Government Solicitor (Plaintiff)

In person (Defendant)

File Number:

SC 27 of 2015

REFSHAUGE J:

1. When the defendant, Nicholas Schofield, was employed by the plaintiff, Indigenous Business Australia, he is said to have improperly withdrawn significant sums of money from its bank accounts. These proceedings have involved the plaintiff seeking to recover that money, including by retrieving assets into which the funds said to have been taken were invested by the defendant.

1. Initially, I was asked to make interlocutory restraining orders in respect of certain moneys and also in respect of the assets of the defendant. I did so on 29 January 2015.

1. The parties, very properly and commendably, engaged in discussions about the substance of the proceedings and how they should be progressed.  Much depended on discovery which, however, did require some judicial supervision.

1. Nevertheless, significant progress was made and, by consent of both parties, I made detailed orders on 12 April 2016, which appeared to dispose of the proceedings. The order was sealed and entered in the records of the Court.

1. Amongst the orders made, it was declared that certain property on North Terrace in Adelaide, South Australia, was held on trust for the plaintiff and other orders were made to give effect to this trust and to transfer the legal title of this property to the plaintiff. The order was prepared by the parties and submitted by the plaintiff’s solicitors with the express consent of the defendant.

1. In the order, the North Terrace Property was a term defined as follows:

North Terrace Property     means the real property known at 1303/140 North Terrace, Adelaide in the State of South Australia 5000, being Lot 1303 in Secondary Community Strata Plan 21890 and more particularly described in South Australian Certificate of…