Lade & Co Pty Ltd v Black

Case [2006] QCA 294

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lade & Co P/L and Ors v Black [2006] QCA 294

PARTIES:

LADE & CO PTY LTD ACN 010 109 369
(first plaintiff/first respondent)
ROBERT HAROLD LADE and MAUREEN JOYCE LADE
(second plaintiff/second respondent)
STEPHEN ROBERT LADE and KAMALA LADE
(third plaintiff/third respondent)
v
DONALD JOHN BLACK
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10336 of 2005
SC No 463 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

15 August 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 May 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard and Keane JJA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed
2. The appellant should pay the respondents’ costs to be assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CONTEMPT, ATTACHMENT AND SEQUESTRATION – CONTEMPT – WHAT CONSTITUTES – BREACH OF UNDERTAKING TO COURT – appellant breached his undertaking to the court to prevent his cattle from trespassing onto the respondents’ land – trial judge did not expressly find that the applicant committed contempt of court by reason of his breach – trial judge found that appellant’s conduct was not contumacious – whether a breach of an undertaking to the court is only a contempt of court if it is accompanied by a contumacious or wilful mental element – was appellant’s failure to prevent straying of cattle not merely casual, accidental or unintentional


PROCEDURE – CONTEMPT, ATTACHMENT AND SEQUESTRATION – POWER OF COURT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT – IN GENERAL – trial judge fined the appellant under r 930 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”) – whether trial judge has the power to impose a fine for a “civil” contempt – whether meaning of “contempt” in r 930 UCPR should be confined to a narrow class of contempts traditionally described as “criminal”

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 49(1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 930

Attorney-General at the relation of theLeyton (Essex) Urban District Council v Walthamstow Urban District Council (1895) 11 TLR 533, cited
Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98, considered
Australian Consolidated Press Limited v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483, considered
Bakir v Doueihi& Ors [2002] QSC 19; SC No 6124 of 2000, 8 February 2002 , considered
City Hall Albury Wodonga Pty Ltd & Ors v Chicago Investments Pty Ltd [2006] QSC 031; SC No 4161 of 2003, 2 March 2006, cited
Director General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd [1995] 1 AC 456, considered
Evenco Pty Ltd v Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation (Qld Branch) [2001] 2 Qd R 118; [2000] QCA 108, considered
Fairclough v Manchester Ship Canal Co [1897] WN 7, considered
Heatons Transport (St Helens) Ltd v Transport and General Workers’ Union [1973] AC 15, cited
Madeira v Roggette Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd…

Continue reading Lade & Co Pty Ltd v Black

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lade & Co Pty Ltd v Black [2006] QCA 294
Case
[2006] QCA 294
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Lade & Co Pty Ltd, appealed against a decision of the District Court of Queensland, which found that the appellant had breached an undertaking to the court to prevent his cattle from trespassing onto the respondents' land. The respondents were awarded damages as a result of the appellant's failure to comply with the undertaking. The appellant argued that the trial judge did not expressly find that he committed contempt of court by reason of his breach and that the trial judge found his conduct was not contumacious. The appellant further argued that a breach of an undertaking to the court is only a contempt of court if it is accompanied by a contumacious or wilful mental element. The trial judge fined the appellant under rule 930 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) for the contempt. The appellant contended that the trial judge did not have the power to impose a fine for a "civil" contempt and that the meaning of "contempt" in rule 930 UCPR should be confined to a narrow class of contempts traditionally described as "criminal".

The court found that the appellant had breached his undertaking to the court to prevent his cattle from trespassing onto the respondents' land. The court held that the trial judge did not expressly find that the appellant committed contempt of court by reason of his breach, but rather found that the appellant's conduct was not contumacious. The court further held that a breach of an undertaking to the court is not necessarily a contempt of court, but rather depends on the circumstances of each case. The court found that the trial judge had the power to impose a fine for a "civil" contempt under rule 930 UCPR, and that the meaning of "contempt" in the rule should not be confined to a narrow class of contempts traditionally described as "criminal".

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant should pay the respondents' costs to be assessed on the standard basis. The court held that the trial judge was correct in finding that the appellant had breached his undertaking to the court and that the fine imposed by the trial judge was appropriate in the circumstances. The court further held that the trial judge had the power to impose a fine for a "civil" contempt under rule 930 UCPR and that the meaning of "contempt" in the rule should not be confined to a narrow class of contempts traditionally described as "criminal".

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

2. The appellant should pay the respondents’ costs to be assessed on the standard basis

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.