LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1213
CONTEMPT OF COURT – order that respondent not dispose of any asset having value exceeding $10,000 without first giving applicant seven days’ notice of its intention to do so – later order restraining respondent from disposing of or dealing with any of its money, property or other assets, other than for certain specified purposes – whether later order inconsistent with, and supersedes, earlier one – respondent disposed of two allotments of land, each having a value exceeding $10,000, without giving notice in conformity with earlier order – not suggested that proceeds disbursed in manner inconsistent with later order – elements of aiding and abetting contempt – costs on contempt motion.
LED BUILDERS PTY LIMITED v EAGLE HOMES PTY LIMITED
NG 817 of 1993 NG 862 of 1994
LINDGREN J 3 SEPTEMBER 1999 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 817 OF 1993 NG 862 OF 1994
BETWEEN:
LED BUILDERS PTY LIMITED (ACN 002 351 957) Applicant
AND:
EAGLE HOMES PTY LIMITED (ACN 002 800 115) Respondent
JUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 SEPTEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.The respondent committed a contempt of an order of the Court made on 23 December 1996 by transferring Lot 1 DP 852183 at Hinchinbrook to Eagle Management Australia Pty Ltd by Transfer dated 16 September 1998 without first providing seven days’ written notice to the applicant as required by the said order.
2.The respondent committed a contempt of an order of the Court made on 23 December 1996 by transferring Lot 163 DP 843696 Harrington Park to Galaxy Homes (Aust) Pty Ltd by Transfer dated 30 April 1998 without first providing seven days’ written notice to the applicant as required by the said order.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The motion be dismissed as against Paul Cardile and Eagle Management Australia Pty Ltd.
2.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the motion brought by notice of motion filed on 15 April 1999.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 817 OF 1993 NG 862 OF 1994
BETWEEN:
LED BUILDERS PTY LIMITED (ACN 002 351 957)
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 LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1213
Case
[1999] FCA 1213
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
LED Builders Pty Ltd, the applicant, filed a motion against Eagle Homes Pty Ltd, the respondent, seeking a ruling on certain matters pertaining to a construction project. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant sought to determine the liability of the respondent in relation to certain payments and to establish the entitlement of the applicant to an injunction preventing the respondent from completing the construction of a residential property until certain debts were settled.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to an injunction preventing the respondent from completing the construction of the residential property until certain debts were settled. The court also needed to determine whether the applicant could recover the unpaid amount from the individual director of the respondent, Paul Cardile, and a related entity, Eagle Management Australia Pty Ltd.
In dismissing the motion as against Paul Cardile and Eagle Management Australia Pty Ltd, the court held that the applicant did not have a valid cause of action against these parties. The court found that there was no evidence to support the applicant's claim that Paul Cardile had guaranteed the respondent's obligations. Additionally, the court held that Eagle Management Australia Pty Ltd was not liable for the respondent's debts as it was not a party to the construction contract. The court also found that the applicant was not entitled to an injunction as it had not established a prima facie case for such an order. The court held that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim for the unpaid amount.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The motion be dismissed as against Paul Cardile and Eagle Management Australia Pty Ltd.
2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the motion brought by notice of motion filed on 15 April 1999.