Legal Research
Cases
Jordan v Goldspring (No 2)

Jordan v Goldspring (No 2)

Link copied

Case Copied 14 June 2022 83 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Jordan v Goldspring (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 780
Hearing dates: 1 and 2 November 2021
Date of orders: 14 June 2022
Decision date: 14 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Henry J
Decision:
See [171]-[172]

Catchwords:
CONTEMPT — Civil contempt — Breach of orders – where orders required executors to file and serve a statement of accounts (in common form) – where new orders were made requiring more detailed accounts and documents to be produced – where executors filed and served accounts purportedly in response to both orders – where contempt charges brought in relation to both orders - whether contempt charge in relation to first orders has utility – where executors' accounts did not cover the whole period of their administration of the deceased’s estate but breach fully remedied by compliance with new orders – discretion not to exercise contempt jurisdiction – whether charges in relation to second orders should be dismissed for imprecision – whether contempt charges are an abuse of process where applicants also seeking relief to revoke the grant of probate to the executors – where contempt charges in relation to later orders raise multiple alleged breaches – finding of limited breaches and civil contempt

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Alpass v Hession [2017] VSC 748
Anderson v Hassett (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 1444
Anderson v Hassett [2007] NSWSC 1310
Athens & Anor v Randwick City Council [2005] NSWCA 317
Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98; [1986] HCA 46
Australian Consolidated Press Limited v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483 at 489; [1965] HCA 21
Bellerive Homes Pty Limited v FW Projects Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 193
Chow v Chow [2016] NSWSC 908
Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd v Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees’ Union (No 2) (1987) 15 FCR 64
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 375;[2015] HCA 21
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Grocon Constructors (Victoria) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 261
Dowling v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 340
Eshow v Zaia [2020] NSWCA 10
Glazier v Australian Men’s Health (No 2) [2001] NSWSC 6
Hagan v Waterhouse [1983] 2 NSWLR 395
Hana v Shad Legal Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 258
Hancock v Reinhardt [2015] NSWSC 646
Harmsworth v Harmsworth [1987] 1 WLR 1676
Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125; [2008] HCA 36
Juul v Northey [2010] NSWCA 211
lnghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Timania Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 155
Mahaffy v Mahaffy [2018] NSWCA 42
Markisic v Commonwealth of Australia [2007] NSWCA 92
Matthews v ASIC [2009] NSWCA 155
McLauchlan v Prince [2001] WASC 43
Meehan v Glazier Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 22; (2002) 54 NSWLR 146
Montgomery v Stewart (1967) 116 CLR 220;

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 Jordan v Goldspring (No 2) 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: [2022] NSWSC 780
Decision Date: 14 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Jordan v Goldspring (No 2), the matter involved the executors of a deceased's estate, the respondents, and the next of kin of the deceased, the applicants. The applicants brought proceedings for contempt against the respondents for breaching court orders by failing to provide the required statements of accounts in the specified format. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine several legal issues, including whether the contempt charges in relation to the first set of orders had any utility, given that the breach had been fully remedied by compliance with the new orders. Another issue was whether the contempt charges in relation to the second set of orders should be dismissed for imprecision. The court also needed to consider whether the contempt charges were an abuse of process, considering that the applicants were also seeking relief to revoke the grant of probate to the executors. Lastly, the court had to assess whether the contempt charges in relation to the later orders raised multiple alleged breaches, and if so, whether a finding of limited breaches and civil contempt was appropriate.

The court found that the contempt charges in relation to the first set of orders did not have any utility because the respondents had fully complied with the new orders. As for the charges in relation to the second set of orders, the court found that they should not be dismissed for imprecision but that the applicants had not established a case of contempt. The court determined that the contempt charges were not an abuse of process and that the applicants had not demonstrated that the contempt charges were an abuse of the court's process. The court found limited breaches and civil contempt in relation to the later orders, and the respondents were ordered to pay costs.

The court ordered that the contempt charges in relation to the first set of orders be dismissed, and that the contempt charges in relation to the second set of orders be dismissed with no order as to costs. The court also found limited breaches and civil contempt in relation to the later orders and ordered the respondents to pay costs.

Orders