Paroz v Paroz (No 4) - [2010] QSC 488

[2010] QSC 488

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

PETER LYONS J

No 9656 of 2004

LESLIE ROLAND PAROZ	Plaintiff/Respondent
and
IAN LESLIE PAROZ, JENNIFER MARGARET PAROZ, KAREN ANN PAROZ and LEWIS MARTIN PAROZ	Defendants/Applicants

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/08/2010

ORDER

HIS HONOUR: By consent, I order that Anne Fordyce and Bradley
Vincent Hallen, appointed as receivers of the partnership
referred to as The Land Partnership from 19 July 2010, be
authorised to act as the agent of Leslie Roland Paroz to sell
the livestock the subject of the injunction contained in
paragraph 1(c) of the order made by me on 11 June 2010
depastured on the properties referred to in that paragraph with express authority to perform the following acts:

(1) to appoint any third party (including, without limitation,
cattle transportation agents and cattle auctioneers) to sell,
as soon as practicable, the livestock referred to herein;

(2) pending sale of the livestock referred to herein to
appoint any agent to provide any care or maintenance to the
livestock as the receivers may in their absolute discretion
deem fit;

(3) to stand possessed of the proceeds received from the sale
of the livestock referred to herein for and on behalf of
Leslie Roland Paroz subject to their providing any accounting
reasonably required by Leslie Roland Paroz;

(4) to make payment of any reasonable fees rendered by any
agent appointed by the receivers pursuant to paragraphs 1 and
2 herein from the sale proceeds held by the receivers pursuant
to paragraphs 3 herein and

(5) upon written demand from Leslie Roland Paroz (or his duly authorised legal representative) to pay to Leslie Roland Paroz (or his duly authorised legal representative) the balance of the proceeds held by the receivers from the sale of the livestock but only following payment of any amounts payable to any agent appointed by the receivers pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 herein.

There will be liberty to apply.

I otherwise adjourn the application for the variation of
orders made on 5 July 2010 to 9.15 on Wednesday, 1 September
2010.

I reserve costs of that application.

...

HIS HONOUR: On 7 April 2010 I granted the present applicants an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from
carrying out certain farming activities on properties named in
that order. On 11 June 2010 I handed down reasons in which I
determined to extend the operation of that order to other
properties and to order that the respondent remove certain
livestock from those properties. The making of that order was finalised on 6 July 2010.

These proceedings are brought on the basis of breaches of
those orders by the respondent. The breaches are said to have
occurred on a number of dates commencing with 16 April 2010,
that is nine days after the making of the first order, until
19 June 2010 so far as the farming activities are concerned; and by reason of the failure of the respondent to remove the
livestock from the properties by 30 July 2010. That failure

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 Paroz v Paroz (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Paroz v Paroz (No 4) [2010] QSC 488
Case: [2010] QSC 488
Decision Date: 19 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Paroz v Paroz (No 4) involved the plaintiff, Leslie Roland Paroz, who was found in contempt of court for multiple breaches of injunctions that restrained him from certain farming activities on specific properties. The defendants, Ian Leslie Paroz, Jennifer Margaret Paroz, Karen Ann Paroz, and Lewis Martin Paroz, sought relief and costs based on the breaches. The court found Leslie Roland Paroz in contempt on multiple occasions, for activities such as slashing grass and planting crops, as well as for failing to remove livestock from the properties as ordered. The court considered factors such as the seriousness of the contempt, the awareness of the consequences, and the lack of contrition from Leslie Roland Paroz. Despite arguments about his care for his mother and the potential benefits of his actions, the court found his conduct to be in serious contempt and imposed penalties including fines and suspended prison sentences. The defendants were awarded their costs on an indemnity basis for the applications brought against Leslie Roland Paroz.

Orders