MindShare Communications Limited (Taiwan Branch) v Eckett - [2010] NSWSC 1511

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION:
MINDSHARE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED (TAIWAN BRANCH) v ECKETT [2010] NSWSC 1511

JURISDICTION:

FILE NUMBER(S):
2009/291218

HEARING DATE(S):
15 November and 17 December 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 December 2010

PARTIES:
Mindshare Communications Ltd (Taiwan Branch) (Plaintiff)
Wayne Gregory Eckett (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:
Tamberlin AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
A Leopold SC/S Free (Plaintiff)
P Barham (Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Allens Arthur Robinson (Plaintiff)
Somerville Legal (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS:
CONTEMPT – motive of contemnor – aggravating factors – admission of contempt – indemnity costs awarded – fine imposed – good behaviour bond – framing of bond to meet particular conduct

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 9, 21A, 22
Fines Act 1996 (NSW), s 6
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 55, r 13
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
Australian Competition and Consumer Authority v Hughes (2002) ATPR 42,779
NCR Australia v Credit Connection [2005] NSWSC 1118
Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Jando (2001) 53 NSWLR 527
R v Bugmy [2004] NSWCCA 258
Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam [No 2] (1992) 26 NSWLR 309

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
(1) The Court declares that the Defendant has committed contempt of court as specified in the Statement of Charge annexed to the Summons filed on 4 November 2009, by breaching order 1 made by the Court of Appeal on 10 March 2009, in that:
(a) on 1 November 2009 the Defendant transmitted to servants or agents of Mattel an email, and attached statutory declaration, contrary to the terms of that order;
(b) on 2 November 2009 the Defendant transmitted to servants or agents of HSBC an email, and attached statutory declaration, contrary to the terms of that order;
(c) on 2 November 2009 the Defendant transmitted to servants or agents of Nike an email, and attached statutory declaration, contrary to the terms of that order;
(d) on 2 November 2009 the Defendant transmitted to servants or agents of Barclays an email, and attached statutory declaration, contrary to the terms of that order.
(2) The Defendant is, on or before 28 days after delivery of this judgment, to enter into a good behaviour bond under s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in the form attached to these orders.
(3) Prior to the Defendant’s entry into the good behaviour bond described in order 2, the Defendant’s solicitor is to explain to the Defendant his obligations under that bond and the consequences that may follow if he fails to comply with those obligations.
(4) The Defendant is, on or before 21 days after delivery of this judgment, to provide to the Registrar of the Equity Division (with a copy to the solicitors for the Plaintiff) a faxed ((02) 9230 8827) or emailed (supreme_court@courts.nsw.gov.au) copy of the good behaviour bond described in order 2 entered into by him. Either mode of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read MindShare Communications Limited (Taiwan Branch) v Eckett and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] NSWSC 1511
Decision Date: 23 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of MindShare Communications Limited (Taiwan Branch) v Eckett, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with addressing contempt proceedings brought against Eckett by MindShare. The dispute revolved around allegations of contempt against Eckett, arising from his failure to comply with a court order, which in turn stemmed from a broader dispute regarding the management and transfer of intellectual property rights in relation to advertising and marketing services. The court was required to determine whether Eckett's actions constituted contempt of court and, if so, what the appropriate sanctions should be.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Eckett's conduct warranted a finding of contempt, considering his admission of contempt and the circumstances surrounding his non-compliance with the court order. The court also needed to consider the appropriate sanctions, including whether to award indemnity costs, impose a fine, and set a good behaviour bond. The court's analysis focused on the nature and severity of Eckett's conduct, his admissions, and any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

The court found that Eckett's conduct did indeed amount to contempt of court, noting his admission and the seriousness of his non-compliance with the court's order. The court highlighted several aggravating factors, including Eckett's previous history of non-compliance and the potential harm to MindShare's business interests. The court awarded indemnity costs to MindShare and imposed a fine on Eckett, considering it necessary to uphold the authority of the court. Additionally, the court set a good behaviour bond, framing it specifically to address Eckett's particular conduct and ensure future compliance with court orders.

The court's final orders included the imposition of a fine of $10,000 on Eckett, the awarding of indemnity costs to MindShare, and the setting of a good behaviour bond for a period of two years. The bond required Eckett to comply with all future court orders and to refrain from any conduct that could be considered contemptuous of the court. The specific terms of the bond were designed to address Eckett's particular conduct and to serve as a deterrent against future non-compliance.

Orders