Legal Research
Cases
NHB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Corry (No 8)

NHB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Corry (No 8)

Link copied

Case Copied 11 February 2022 48 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: NHB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Corry (No 8) [2022] NSWSC 97
Hearing dates: 10 September 2021
Date of orders: 11 February 2022
Decision date: 11 February 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Bell P
Decision:
1.   Order that the First Respondent, Alexander Stephen Corry, be sentenced, on the first charge against him, to a term of imprisonment of three months commencing from the date of his arrest.
2.   Order that the First Respondent, Alexander Stephen Corry, be sentenced, on the second charge against him, to a term of imprisonment of three months to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for the first charge.
3.   Order that the First Respondent, Alexander Stephen Corry, be sentenced, on the fourth charge against him, to a term of imprisonment of two months to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for the first charge.
4.   Order that a warrant for the committal of the First Respondent, Alexander Stephen Corry, to prison for the said term of three months be issued.
5.   Order that the warrant for the committal of the First Respondent, Alexander Stephen Corry, to prison be executed forthwith.
6.   Order that the Second Respondent, Boriana Corry, pay a fine of $15,000.
7.   Order that Order 6 is to be suspended on the condition that the Second Respondent, Boriana Corry, furnishes to the Registrar of the Equity Division, within 18 months of the stay of this Order (made pursuant to Order 8) being lifted, proof that she has performed 25 hours of community service for a school, church or other registered charitable organisation.
8.   Order that the execution of Orders 4, 5 and 6 be stayed pending the determination of the First and Second Respondents’ foreshadowed appeal against the declarations that each of them was in contempt of this Court.
9.   The First Respondent is to pay the Applicants’ costs of the proceedings in respect of the charges against him.
10. The Second Respondent is to pay the Applicants’ costs of the proceedings in respect of the charges against her.

Catchwords:
CONTEMPT – civil contempt – penalties – imprisonment – where contemnor should only be committed to prison as a last resort – where common law purposes and principles of sentencing apply – high degree of necessity for deterrence – where contemnor engaged in serious, deliberate and contumacious conduct in attempt to frustrate search orders made by the Court – consideration of apology to the Court– where contemnor is admitted solicitor and officer of the Court – where conduct of contemnor and evidence regarding penalty warrant custodial sentence – contemnor to serve a term of three months’ imprisonment
CONTEMPT – civil contempt – penalties – where contemnor should only be committed to prison as a last resort – where contemnor engaged in serious conduct in breach of prohibited contact order – where contemnor maintains innocence despite proffering unconditional apology to the Court – where contemnor’s conduct was secondary to that of co-contemnor – imposition of a…

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 NHB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Corry (No 8) 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: [2022] NSWSC 97
Decision Date: 11 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

NHB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Corry (No 8) is a case involving civil contempt in which the primary dispute was whether the contemnors, who were also solicitors, should be imprisoned for their conduct in frustrating search orders made by the court. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court had to decide on the appropriate penalties for the contemnors, considering the necessity of deterrence and punishment of contemptuous conduct, and the fact that imprisonment should only be a last resort.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the contemnors' conduct warranted imprisonment, given the high degree of necessity for deterrence and the common law principles of sentencing that apply in civil contempt cases. The court also had to consider the seriousness of the contempt, the culpability of the contemnors, their motives, and expressions of contrition. Additionally, the court had to weigh the necessity to punish the contemptuous conduct against the potential deterrence that a custodial sentence would provide.

The court found that the contemnors' conduct was serious, deliberate, and contumacious, warranting a custodial sentence. It was determined that imprisonment should only be a last resort, but in this case, the necessity for deterrence and punishment outweighed other considerations. The court imposed a term of three months' imprisonment on one contemnor, and a fine with a suspended sentence conditional upon community service for the other. The court took into account the contemnors' apologies and their status as officers of the court, but ultimately found that their conduct warranted a custodial sentence. The court's reasoning was based on the need to deter similar conduct in the future and to punish the contemptuous behaviour.

The final orders of the court were that the first contemnor was to serve a term of three months' imprisonment, while the second contemnor was to pay a fine and perform a period of community service, with the sentence suspended on the condition of satisfactory completion of the community service. The court's decision highlights the importance of maintaining the authority of the court and the rule of law, even in cases involving officers of the court.

Orders