O'Connor v Hough (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 78 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

O’Connor & Ors v Hough & Ors (No 2) [2017] QSC 68

PARTIES:

TERRENCE JOHN O’CONNOR
(first applicant)
and
JUDITH ANN O’DONOGHUE

(second applicant)
and
JOHN NEIVE O’DONOGHUE
(third applicant)

v
BERNARD WILLIAM HOUGH
(first respondent)
and
KENNETH MICHAEL HOUGH

(second respondent)
and
DENBROOK INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 010 236 978
(third respondent)
and
GLENRICK PTY LTD ACN 080 390 745
(fourth respondent)
and
PETER JOHN RIMMINGTON
(fifth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

No 5819 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING:

11 April 2016; 12 April 2016; 13 April 2016; 14 April 2016;  15 April 2016; Revised Outline of Argument on behalf of the second applicant received 22 April 2016; Outline of Argument on behalf of the second respondent received 3 May 2016; Outline of Argument in Reply on behalf of the second applicant received 9 May 2016; Supplementary written submissions on behalf of the second applicant received 12 October 2016; Supplementary written submissions on behalf of the second respondent received 24 October 2016; 27 April 2017; Further written submissions on behalf of the second respondent received 27 April 2017

JUDGE:

Burns J

ORDER:

The orders of the court are:

1.     It is declared that the second respondent, Kenneth Michael Hough, committed contempt of court by breaching one of the undertakings contained in the orders of Martin J made on 26 June 2014 and 14 October 2014;

2.     The parties are directed to make submissions on penalty, compensation and costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE – CONTEMPT OF COURT – CIVIL CONTEMPT – BREACHES OF COURT ORDERS – BREACHES OF UNDERTAKINGS TO COURT – application seeking committal for contempt of court for failure to comply with undertakings contained in court orders –construction and meaning of undertakings – time for compliance with orders – whether the undertakings, or either of them, were breached – whether a declaration should be made  

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 900, r 930, r 931, r 932

Advan Investments Pty Ltd v Dean Gleeson Sales Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 201, cited
ASIC v Sigalla(No 4) (2011) 80 NSWLR 113; [2011] NSWSC 62, cited
Afkos Industries Pty Ltd v Pullinger Stewart (A Firm) [2001] WASCA 372, cited
Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station (1986) 161 CLR 98; [1986] HCA 46, cited
Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483; [1965] HCA 21, cited
Azzopardi v R (2001) 205 CLR 50; [2001] HCA 25, cited
Bakir v Doueihi & Ors [2002] QSC 19, cited
Camm v ASI Development Company Pty Ltd[2007] QCA 317, cited
Colefax v Colefax [1933] St R Qd 222, cited
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 375; [2015] HCA 21, cited
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Grocon Constructions (Vic) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 261, cited

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read O'Connor v Hough (No 2) 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
[2017] QSC 68
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of O'Connor v Hough (No 2) involved a dispute where the plaintiff, O'Connor, sought committal for contempt of court against the defendant, Hough, for failing to comply with undertakings contained in court orders. The matter was before the court following breaches of court orders and specific undertakings given by Hough to the court. The primary focus was on the interpretation of these undertakings and whether Hough's actions constituted a breach of the court's orders.

The court needed to determine the precise construction and meaning of the undertakings in question, which were outlined in orders made by Martin J on 26 June 2014 and 14 October 2014. The legal issues included whether the undertakings were indeed breached by Hough and, if so, what the appropriate consequences should be. The court examined the terms of the orders and the context in which they were made to ascertain Hough's obligations and whether he had failed to comply with them.

In its reasoning, the court found that Hough had breached one of the undertakings contained in the orders. The court concluded that Hough's actions clearly contravened the terms of the court's orders, which were intended to ensure compliance with certain obligations. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court orders and undertakings, as they are legally binding and enforceable. The court declared that Hough had committed contempt of court and directed the parties to make submissions regarding the appropriate penalty, compensation, and costs.

The court issued two orders. Firstly, it declared that Hough had committed contempt of court by breaching one of the undertakings. Secondly, it directed the parties to submit on the matter of penalty, compensation, and costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the court are:

1. It is declared that the second respondent, Kenneth Michael Hough, committed contempt of court by breaching one of the undertakings contained in the orders of Martin J made on 26 June 2014 and 14 October 2014;

2. The parties are directed to make submissions on penalty, compensation and costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.