Mane Market Pty Ltd v Temple No. Scgrg-96-2017 Judgment No. S6986

In the matter of Mane Market Pty Ltd v Temple, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant breached a Mareva injunction ordered by the court. The plaintiffs made three applications seeking, among other orders, the issue of a Registrar’s summons for contempt. The first application concerned the defendant’s assignment of his interest in The Temple Weeks Trust. The defendant admitted the breach but denied acting in contempt, arguing that the breach was not contumacious. The court found that it was not appropriate to determine whether the breach was contumacious at that stage. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to justify the issue of a Registrar’s summons for contempt.

The second application concerned the defendant’s withdrawal of $7,000 from a telephone betting account at the Totalizator Agency Board (TAB) on 1 February 1997. The defendant admitted the withdrawal but denied that it was in breach of the injunction. The court found that there was prima facie evidence of a breach of the injunction and ordered the issue of a Registrar’s summons for contempt.

The third application concerned the failure of Southern Hotels Pty Ltd to produce a telephone betting withdrawal slip which was the subject of a subpoena. The defendant’s solicitors had been in possession of a copy of the slip for some time but had not sought to inspect the original. The court found that there was a prima facie case for the issue of a Registrar’s summons for contempt in respect of the destruction of the withdrawal slip.

The defendant applied to vary the terms of the Mareva injunction to enable him to pay his legal fees and ordinary living expenses. The defendant had admitted a breach of the Mareva injunction and there were facts which justified the issue of a Registrar’s summons for contempt in respect of the other two alleged breaches. However, the court exercised its discretion to hear the defendant’s application, with certain conditions. The court considered the principles of procedural fairness and the defendant’s right to conduct his defence, notwithstanding the alleged contempt. The court also considered the defendant’s gambling activities and the need to prevent dissipation of his assets in that way. The court remitted the matter for enquiry by a master as to how much should be allowed for living expenses and legal expenses.