Jenolan Caves Resort Pty Ltd v Field - [2007] NSWSC 1117

CITATION: Jenolan Caves Resort Pty Limited v Field; St George Bank Limited v Field [2007] NSWSC 1117

HEARING DATE(S): 4 October 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
4 October 2007

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Commercial List

JUDGMENT OF: Bergin J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 4 October 2007

DECISION: Defendant restrained from sending letters to individual directors.

CATCHWORDS: [CONTEMPT] - [ORDERS] - Whether defendant should be restrained from sending letters personally to directors and officers of plaintiffs rather than to their legal representatives - Whether necessary to make a formal finding of contempt - Whether Court's powers for management of proceedings adequate exercise of power to restrain defendant

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005

CASES CITED: Global Custodians Limited v Mesh [2000] NSWSC 845
Kitkat v Sharp (1882) 52 LJ Ch 134

PARTIES: Jenolan Caves Resort Pty Limited - plaintiff in 50122/2007
St George Bank Limited - plaintiff in 50053/2007
Archer Phillip Field - defendant in each matter

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 50112/2007; 50053/2007

COUNSEL: P Dowdy - plaintiff in each matter
A Field - defendant in person

SOLICITORS: Henry Davis York - plaintiff in each matter
A Field - defendant in person

- 6 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL LIST

BERGIN J

4 OCTOBER 2007

50112 OF 2007 JENOLAN CAVES RESORT PTY LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) v ARCHER PHILLIP FIELD

50053 OF 2007 ST GEORGE BANK LIMITED v ARCHER PHILLIP FIELD

JUDGMENT

1 On 28 September 2007 the Notices of Motion in these two matters were listed today for hearing as special fixtures. The first proceedings, Jenolan Caves Resort Pty Ltd (in receivership and liquidation) v Archer Phillip Field have been referred to as the JCR proceedings, and the second proceedings, St George Bank Limited v Archer Phillip Field, have been referred to as the St George proceedings. I will adopt those descriptions. Mr P Dowdy of counsel appears for the plaintiff in each matter and Mr Field appears in person in each matter.

2 In the St George proceedings judgment has been entered against Mr Field in the amount of $6.8 million. Mr Field has filed a holding summons for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In the JCR proceedings summary judgment has been entered in the amount of $814,454 against Mr Field, however a cross-claim by Mr Field is pending alleging a form of set-off in the amount of $3 million on the basis that between July 1995 and August 1996 he sold two rural properties and the balance of the proceeds of sale of $3 million was advanced to JCR from his accounts. That matter needs to be dealt with in due course.

3 Over the last year Mr Field has written to the directors of the plaintiff, St George Bank, in terms that can only be described as highly inappropriate. It seems to me on the evidence that Mr Field has targeted the corporate mind of St George Bank in an unsatisfactory way, making threats and allegations and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jenolan Caves Resort Pty Ltd v Field and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] NSWSC 1117
Decision Date: 4 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Jenolan Caves Resort Pty Ltd v Field was heard. The plaintiffs, Jenolan Caves Resort, sought relief against the defendant, Field, in relation to the latter's conduct which included sending letters directly to the plaintiffs' directors and officers instead of their legal representatives. The dispute centred on whether Field's actions constituted contempt of court, whether the court was required to make a formal finding of contempt, and if the court's powers for managing proceedings were sufficient to restrain such conduct.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal boundaries for communication between parties in litigation, particularly when such communication bypasses legal representatives. It had to assess whether the defendant's actions warranted contempt proceedings and if a formal finding was necessary to enforce compliance with court-mandated communication protocols. Additionally, the court evaluated the adequacy of its inherent powers to manage proceedings and whether these powers could be effectively exercised to restrain the defendant from bypassing legal representatives.

The Federal Court found that the defendant's conduct, which involved sending letters directly to the plaintiffs' directors and officers, did indeed warrant restraint. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining communication through legal representatives to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The court held that a formal finding of contempt was not necessary to impose the required restraint. Instead, it exercised its inherent powers to manage proceedings by issuing orders to prevent the defendant from directly contacting the plaintiffs' directors and officers in the future. These orders were aimed at ensuring that all future communications were channelled through the appropriate legal representatives.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendant refrain from sending any further communications directly to the plaintiffs' directors and officers. These orders underscored the court's commitment to maintaining procedural fairness and the importance of adhering to established legal communication channels in litigation.

Orders