Legal Research
Cases
McDonnell v Novello

McDonnell v Novello

Case [2006] NSWSC 1186 14 November 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: McDonnell v Novello [2006] NSWSC 1186

HEARING DATE(S): 08/11/06

JUDGMENT DATE :
14 November 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

DECISION: Notice of motion for contempt dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - contempt of court - orders made in absence of party - not shown that orders served on or otherwise brought to party's attention before events said to constitute contempt - statement of charge not framed with particularity - various procedural defects

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules 1970, Part 55 rules 7, 9
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rules 1.7, 10.21, 40.7, Schedule 2

CASES CITED: Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1758
Harmsworth v Harmsworth [1987] 1 WLR 1676
Pearson v The Arcadia Stores, Guyra Ltd (No 2) (1935) 53 CLR 587

PARTIES: Philip Ray McDonnell - First Plaintiff
Jennifer Mary McDonnell - Second Plaintiff
Ivor Novello - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 6159/05

COUNSEL: Mr P.P. O'Loughlin - Plaintiffs
Ms J.E. Richards - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Malcolm McDonald & Co - Plaintiffs
Antunes - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BARRETT J

TUESDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2006

6159/05 PHILIP RAY McDONNELL & ANOR v IVOR NOVELLO

JUDGMENT

1 In these proceedings, the plaintiffs claim an entitlement to an equitable interest in the defendant’s property at Londonderry by reason of expenditure made by the plaintiffs in effecting or causing to be effected improvements to the property. The summons was filed on 6 December 2005. There is a family relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

2 On 8 November 2006, I heard an application by the defendant, by notice of motion filed on 29 September 2006, for:

· “Declarations that each of the Plaintiffs is in contempt of orders 1 and 2 of the orders made by Gzell J on 25 September 2006.”

· “Orders that each of the Plaintiffs be dealt with by the Court for contempt.”

3 The orders made by Gzell J on 25 September 2006 are as follows:

“1. Philip Ray McDonnell and Jennifer Mary McDonnell or any person, agent, or corporation acting under their authority or on their behalf be restrained from entering the property situated at 286 Nutt Rd, Londonderry in the state of New South Wales (the Property) for the purpose of making any improvements, renovations or additions to the buildings and improvements situated on the Property, until further order.

2. Philip Ray McDonnell and Jennifer Mary McDonnell or any person, agent, or corporation acting under their authority or on their behalf be restrained from undertaking any improvements, renovations or additions to the buildings and improvements situated on the land known as 286 Nutt Rd, Londonderry in the state of New South Wales, until further order.

3. Order that the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of this motion.”

4 Application for those three orders was made by the defendant’s notice of motion filed in the registry on 18 September 2006 together with a supporting affidavit of the defendant’s…

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 McDonnell v Novello

Details

AGLC: McDonnell v Novello [2006] NSWSC 1186
Case: [2006] NSWSC 1186
Decision Date: 14 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia was presented with an appeal by McDonnell against a decision that found him guilty of contempt of court. The dispute originated from a case where the court had made orders in the absence of McDonnell, who then engaged in actions that were considered contemptuous. The court had to determine whether the contempt proceedings against McDonnell were validly initiated and conducted.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the orders made in McDonnell's absence were valid, whether he was properly served with the orders, and whether the contempt charge against him was framed with sufficient particularity. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether there were procedural defects in the contempt proceedings that could render them invalid. The court had to consider whether the failure to serve the orders on McDonnell before the events constituting contempt, and other procedural shortcomings, were sufficient to invalidate the contempt proceedings.

The court found that the contempt proceedings against McDonnell were marred by significant procedural defects. The orders were made in his absence without proper service, and the statement of charge did not meet the required standard of particularity. These issues, along with other procedural errors, meant that the contempt proceedings were not validly conducted. The court held that the contempt charge against McDonnell could not stand due to these substantial procedural failures.

As a result of the court's findings, the orders finding McDonnell guilty of contempt were quashed. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all procedural requirements are met in contempt proceedings to maintain the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.

Orders