Pisano v Dandris

In the matter of Pisano v Dandris, the defendant, Dandris, was charged with contempt for failing to comply with freezing orders. The dispute centred around the interpretation and enforcement of these orders under rule 29.10 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The court had to determine whether, based on the evidence presented, a finding of contempt could be supported and whether this contempt should be classified as criminal or civil. Furthermore, the court had to decide the appropriate standard of proof applicable to the case, as well as the validity of the two grounds advanced by the defendant for entering judgment in its favour.

The first ground advanced by Dandris was that the evidence did not demonstrate that the transactions in question did not fall within the exception for authorised spending. The court held that this matter was primarily for the defendant to demonstrate, and that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that the transactions were outside the scope of the exception. The second ground was that all but two of the transactions occurred at a time when the orders were not in force, and that the orders were subsequently amended retrospectively to apply 'nunc pro tunc'. The court found that since the orders were not in force at the time of the alleged infringing acts, Dandris could not be deemed to be in breach of those orders. Consequently, the second ground was made out in respect of the transactions to which it related.

The court ruled that Dandris had no case to answer except in relation to the two transactions that occurred after the orders were in force. The court determined that the contempt should be classified as civil, and that the standard of proof applicable was that of the civil standard. The court ultimately dismissed the application, finding that there was no evidence to support a finding of contempt against Dandris for the majority of the transactions.