Legal Research
Cases
LaserBond Limited v Hooper

LaserBond Limited v Hooper

Case [2025] NSWSC 442 8 May 2025

Contempt of Court

Appeal

Discovery & Disclosure

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: LaserBond Limited v Hooper [2025] NSWSC 442
Hearing dates: 16 April 2025
Date of orders: 8 May 2025
Decision date: 08 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Hmelnitsky J
Decision:
See [77]

Catchwords:
CONTEMPT — Civil contempt — Breach of undertakings – Where parties entered into binding heads of agreement – Where interlocutory undertakings provided to court never discharged – Whether contempt could be found where undertakings given under heads of agreement overlapped with earlier undertakings given to court
CONTEMPT — Civil contempt – No appearance by alleged contemnor at hearing
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Settlement – Orders under s 73 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to give effect to a settlement between the parties

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 73

Cases Cited:
Alexander v Crawford [2003] NSWSC 426
Attorney-General for New South Wales v Hayden (1994) 34 NSWLR 638
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] 1 AC 191
Australian Consolidated Press v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483; [1965] HCA 21
Doyle v Commonwealth (1985) 156 CLR 510; [1985] HCA 46
Duncan-Strelec v Tate [2008] NSWSC 1145
Gilbert v Gilbert [1955] St R Qd 245
Gonzales v State Coroner of New South Wales (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1093
Gorczynski v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd [2016] NSWCA 170
In Re Clements (1877) 46 LJ Ch 375
In the matter of Jimmy’s Recipe Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 93
Markisic v Commonwealth of Australia (2007) 69 NSWLR 737; [2007] NSWCA 92
Melksham v Fraser Island Barge Transport Pty Ltd [2003] 1 Qd R 520; [2002] QCA 218
Novelly v Tamqia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 167
Orleans Investments Pty Ltd v MindShare Communications Ltd (2009) 254 ALR 81; [2009] NSWCA 40
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Jarvie [2016] NSWSC 1343
Re Group Pty Ltd v Kazal [2017] FCA 1084
Registrar, Court of Appeal v Ritter (1985) 34 NSWLR 641
Ronowska v Kus (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 817
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525; [1995] HCA 3
Yu v Yu [2020] NSWSC 1904

Texts Cited:
Professor David Rolph, Contempt (2023, The Federation Press)

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: LaserBond Limited ACN 057 636 692 (Plaintiff/Applicant)
Gregory John Hooper (Defendant/Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Furlan (Plaintiff/Applicant)
Solicitors:
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Plaintiff/Applicant)
BlackBay Lawyers (Defendant/Respondent)

File Number(s): 2023/470241
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

The defendant, Mr Hooper, was one of the founders and is a former director of the plaintiff (LaserBond). In the latter half of 2023, Mr Hooper seems to have waged a campaign of disparagement against LaserBond and its current management on a social media site for investors. LaserBond commenced these proceedings by Summons in late December 2023. It filed a statement of claim in February 2024 whereby it sought relief under the Australian Consumer Law and in injurious falsehood against Mr Hooper. It also sought urgent interlocutory injunctive relief pending final determination of the proceedings.
On 3 January 2024, the application for urgent interlocutory…

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.

Continue reading LaserBond Limited v Hooper

Details

AGLC: LaserBond Limited v Hooper [2025] NSWSC 442
Case: [2025] NSWSC 442
Decision Date: 08 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by LaserBond Limited against Mr Hooper, where the primary issue was whether Mr Hooper had breached certain undertakings he had given. The dispute arose from a series of agreements between the parties, including binding heads of agreement and specific undertakings provided to the court. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine whether Mr Hooper was in contempt of court due to his failure to comply with the undertakings he had provided. The legal question centred on whether the contempt could be found given that the undertakings under the heads of agreement overlapped with earlier undertakings given to the court. Additionally, the court considered whether the absence of Mr Hooper at the hearing affected the proceedings.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the undertakings given by Mr Hooper had not been discharged, and his non-appearance at the hearing did not prevent the court from making findings of contempt. The court found that Mr Hooper was indeed in contempt due to his failure to adhere to the binding nature of the undertakings. Given the overlap between the heads of agreement and the court's undertakings, the court held that Mr Hooper's breaches were clear and constituted contempt. The court also emphasised the importance of adhering to court-imposed undertakings, even when they overlap with contractual obligations.

The final orders included a declaration that Mr Hooper was in contempt of court and that he should comply with the original undertakings. The court also ordered that specific steps be taken to ensure future compliance with any similar obligations.

Orders