Prostrength Pty Ltd v Cast Group Australia Pty Ltd & Anor
[2024] VCC 147
•27 February 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMERCIAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CI-23-05774
| Prostrength Pty Ltd (ACN 092 168 628) | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| Cast Group Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 654 817 857) | First Defendant |
| and | |
| Andreas Triantafyllos (also known as Andreas Triantafyllou, Andrew Triantafyllos and Andrew Triatafyllos) | Second Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Her Honour Judge Kirton | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 20 February 2024 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 27 February 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Prostrength Pty Ltd v Cast Group Australia Pty Ltd & Anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 147 | |
REASONS FOR RULING
---
Subject:CONTEMPT OF COURT
Catchwords: Civil contempt – breach of court orders restraining the defendants from withdrawing funds from their bank accounts - breach of court orders requiring the defendants to file an affidavit of documents and an affidavit as to the purchase, ownership, or sale of the vehicle the subject of this proceeding
Legislation Cited: County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2018 (Vic); Evidence Act 2008
Cases Cited:Kong Hwa Pty Ltd v Chih [2020] VCC 1842; Legal Services Board v Forster (No 2) [2012] VSC 633; Marubeni Equipment Finance (Oceania) Pty Ltd v Harris [2018] VCC 267; Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 949; Marubeni Equipment Finance (Oceania) Pty Ltd v Harris [2018] VCC 267; Fortune Holding Group Pty Ltd v Zhang (No.2) [2017] VSC 738
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | G Lubofsky (of counsel) | Lionheart Lawyers |
| For the Defendants | T Kaine (solicitor advocate) | Kaine Law |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
1On 20 October 2023, freezing and ancillary orders were made by her Honour Judge A. Ryan on the application of the plaintiff against the defendants (Freezing Order). The Freezing Order has been extended a number of times since that date and is still in force.
2On 31 October 2023, further orders were made by her Honour Judge A. Ryan in chambers, based on minutes of consent orders filed by the parties (31 October Orders). These required the defendants to:
(a) make discovery by affidavit of documents concerning:
(i)the purchase, ownership, or sale of the vehicle the subject of this dispute (Vehicle); and
(ii)their dealings, and any other dealings, with the sum of $250,000.00 paid by the plaintiff to the bank account of the first defendant (Payment); and
(b) file and serve an affidavit deposing to matters including the ownership and/or registration of the Vehicle; the purchase and sale of the Vehicle; the present whereabouts of the Vehicle; any person that has or may have an interest in the Vehicle; any other matters necessary to understand those; and their dealings with the Payment.
3The dates for compliance with the 31 October Orders were extended at the defendants’ request on numerous occasions until most recently, to 14 February 2024.
4The defendants have failed to make discovery and to file and serve the affidavit ordered by the 31 October Orders. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants have breached the Freezing Order.
5On 1 December 2023, the plaintiff filed a summons seeking to have the defendants punished for contempt of Court (the contempt application). The application is made under Rules 66.05 and 75.05 of the County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2018 (the Rules)[1], and arises from the defendants’ failure to comply with:
(a) the 31 October Orders; and
(b) the Freezing Order.
[1] County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2018, r 66.05 and 75.05.
6The plaintiff provided written submissions in support of its contempt application, and relied upon the affidavit of Charbel Azzi sworn 20 November 2023, the affidavit of service of Christie Nassif sworn 9 February 2024, bank statements produced by Westpac Banking Corporation under subpoena and other documents tendered in a Court Book prepared by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also referred to the affidavit of its director, Robert Alha, filed in support of its application for the Freezing Order, sworn 19 October 2023.
7The only affidavit filed by the defendants has been an affidavit of assets sworn by the second defendant on 26 October 2023, which was ordered by the Freezing Order. The defendants did not file any affidavit or submissions in response to the contempt application despite having been given numerous extensions of time to do so (most recently until 16 February 2024).
Background facts
8The plaintiff, Prostrength Pty Ltd (Prostrength), is a pawnbroker and second-hand dealer licensed in New South Wales. In September 2023, Mr Alha, the director of the plaintiff, was approached by a finance broker, Luca Guerra, who sought on behalf of his client, the second defendant, Mr Triantafyllos, a loan of $250,000.00 to be secured by the Vehicle, a valuable 2017 McLaren 720S sports car. As Prostrength was not a licenced pawn broker at the time, Prostrength was not able to loan funds against the security of a vehicle. However, Mr Alha proposed an arrangement by which Prostrength would purchase the Vehicle from Mr Triantafyllos for $250,000.00, and grant him an option to purchase the Vehicle back from Prostrength within three months. The parties reached agreement on such an arrangement, the terms of the agreement were set out in a written agreement dated 16 September 2023 signed by both Mr Alha and Mr Triantafyllos which stated as follows (Contract):
I, ANDREAS TRIANTAFYLLOS, of [address], agree to sell my car to Sydney Car Wholesalers, unless this agreement is redeemed in the event of the car bought back within three (3) months of the date of execution on this contract.
Purchase Price: AUD $250,000.00
9Accompanying the Contract was a tax invoice from the first defendant, Cast Group Pty Ltd (Cast Group) to Prostrength for $250,000.00, a VicRoads certification document certifying Cast Group as the registered operator of the Vehicle, and Mr Triantafyllos’ driver license. That same day, pursuant to the terms of the Contract, Prostrength paid $250,000.00 to an account in Cast Group’s name.
10The Vehicle was never delivered to Prostrength and the defendants have not repaid the $250,000.00. The present location of the Vehicle is not known to Prostrength.
11During the hearings on 6 February 2024 and 9 February 2024, the defendants’ solicitor stated in open Court that his clients knew they have to repay the $250,000.00.
Procedural history
12The plaintiff commenced this proceeding by Writ and Statement of Claim seeking to enforce the Contract and obtain delivery-up of the Vehicle, or alternatively, a refund of the $250,000.00 lent to the defendants. The Writ was accompanied by a summons seeking freezing orders against the defendants that was heard urgently ex parte the following day.
13As noted above, on 20 October 2023, her Honour Judge A. Ryan made the Freezing Order against the defendants. Amongst other things, the Freezing Order stated at paragraph 6(a) that Mr Triantafyllos “must not remove from Australia or in any way dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any of your assets which are in Australia ("Australian assets") up to the unencumbered value of AUD$350,000 ("the relevant amount").”
14On 26 October 2023, pursuant to ancillary orders to the Freezing Order, Mr Triantafyllos filed an affidavit setting out the extent of the defendants’ assets. In short, he deposed to the defendants having no net assets. Tellingly, however, the affidavit also did not depose to either Mr Triantafyllos or Cast Group owning the Vehicle.
15On 31 October 2023, her Honour Judge A. Ryan made orders directing the defendants by 1 November 2023 to:
(a) make discovery by affidavit of documents in their possession, custody or power concerning the purchase, ownership, or sale of the Vehicle; and
(b) for Mr Triantafyllos to swear an affidavit in respect of his dealings with the Vehicle and the purchase funds of $250,000.00.
16The 31 October 2023 Orders were made in chambers, based on Minutes of Consent Orders filed by the parties’ solicitors. That is, the defendants agreed to provide the affidavits.
17The plaintiff’s summons listed for hearing on 2 November 2023 was adjourned to 3 November 2023. At a hearing on 3 November 2023, at which time the defendants were represented by counsel, the summons was adjourned to 10 November 2023, the Freezing Order was extended and the filing of the defendants’ affidavits was extended to 9 November 2023.
18The 10 November 2023 hearing was adjourned by consent to 14 November 2023, and the Freezing Order was extended.
19At the hearing on 14 November 2023, at which time the defendants were represented by a solicitor, the Court noted that the defendants had not complied with the 31 October Orders or the 3 November Orders. Their solicitor indicated an intention to cease acting. Her Honour Judge Marks noted in the 14 November Orders “The Court reminds the defendants of the importance of complying with Court orders and the significant consequences if the defendants continue to fail to do so.”
20The time for the defendants to file their affidavit of documents and affidavit in respect of the Vehicle was extended to 16 November 2023, the Freezing Order was extended and the hearing of the plaintiff’s summons was adjourned to 22 November 2023.
21The hearing on 22 November 2023 was adjourned to 29 November 2023 following an email from Mr Triantafyllos on 22 November stating that he had influenza A and provided a medical certificate stating he was unable to attend Court. The 22 November Orders made by her Honour Judge Marks noted the defendants’ continuing non-compliance and extended the Freezing Order.
22On 28 November 2023, Mr Triantafyllos advised the Court that he had been hospitalised with severe pneumonia and was unable to attend the hearing on 29 November 2023. Mr Triantafyllos also sought time to seek legal advice. My chambers required that Mr Triantafyllos produce a medical certificate. Orders were made in chambers on 29 November 2023 adjourning the summons to 4 December 2023 and requiring Mr Triantafyllos to provide a medical certificate. No such certificate has been received. The Freezing Order was further extended by the orders made on 29 November 2023.
23On 1 December 2023, the plaintiff issued the summons for the contempt application. This was listed for hearing on 6 February 2024.
24On 4 December 2023, the return of the freezing order summons came before her Honour Judge Marks. The second defendant appeared in person on behalf of the defendants. Mr Triantafyllos indicated that the defendants intended to apply to discharge the Freezing Orders, and that an application to do so would be filed by 8 December 2023. Orders were made extending the Freezing Order and the date to make discovery and file an affidavit to 12 December 2023. An order was also made requiring the second defendant to attend before the Court to be cross examined on 6 February 2024 pursuant to rule 40.04(1) of the Rules.
25The defendants have not made any application to discharge the Freezing Order, nor was discovery made or the relevant affidavit filed. On 11 December 2023, the Freezing Order was extended to 6 February 2024.
26On 2 February 2024, the then solicitor for the defendants sought leave to cease to act. By an order made in chambers, leave was granted. The hearing on 6 February 2024 was confirmed, and it was noted that the purpose of the directions hearing was to consider any application by the first defendant for leave to be represented by its director, together with the plaintiff’s summonses and any further extensions of time.
27At the hearing before me on 6 February 2024, the defendants were legally represented by Mr Kaine, a solicitor they had just retained. Mr Kaine requested an adjournment to obtain proper instructions and familiarise himself with the history of the proceeding. Despite the plaintiff’s objections, I granted an adjournment to 9 February 2024. The second defendant was ordered to attend for cross examination on 9 February 2024 and the Freezing Order was extended.
28At the hearing before me on 9 February 2024, the defendants’ solicitor sought a further adjournment to allow the defendants to provide proper instructions and finalise affidavit material in respect of the summonses. Despite the plaintiff’s objections, I granted an adjournment to 20 February 2024, and noted that “I will allow a further short adjournment to allow the defendants to comply with previous orders and to respond to the matters alleged in the summons. This is not to condone the defendants’ conduct. It is to allow the defendants one further opportunity to comply with the orders (which I note they agreed to) to provide discovery and an affidavit…”.
29On 9 February 2024, the following orders were made:
(a) by 14 February 2024 the defendants must file and serve any affidavits they intend to rely upon
(b) by 16 February 2024 the defendants may file and serve written submissions
(c) the second defendant was ordered to attend Court on 20 February 2024 for cross examination
(d) the Freezing Order was further extended.
30The defendants did not file any affidavits by 14 February 2024. They did not file any written submissions by 16 February 2024. The second defendant did not attend Court on 20 February 2024. His solicitor attended the hearing before me and advised that he had just received instructions by text message that the second defendant had been in a car accident while on his way to Court. He applied for an adjournment. When asked why his clients had not filed any affidavits or submissions by 14 February 2024 or 16 February 2024, their solicitor did not have an explanation. The plaintiff objected to any further adjournments.
31For the reasons set out in the order of 20 February 2024, I refused the defendants’ request for a further adjournment. I heard the plaintiff’s submissions in relation to its summons dated 1 December 2023 (the contempt application). The defendants were given one further opportunity to file any written submission in opposition to the plaintiff’s application, by 21 February 2024. As of 26 February 2024, no submissions were filed.
32I have proceeded to determine the plaintiff’s contempt application on the evidence and submissions before me.
Applicable principles relating to contempt
33As her Honour Judge A. Ryan said in Kong Hwa Pty Ltd v Chih,[2] it is well settled that the failure by a party to comply with a Court order constitutes contempt of Court.[3] The purpose of imposing punishment for wilful disobedience to the Court is to discipline the offender and vindicate the authority of the Court. The relevant standard is the criminal standard: namely, the facts must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
[2]Kong Hwa Pty Ltd v Chih [2020] VCC 1842, 25 – 27.
[3] Legal Services Board v Forster (No 2) [2012] VSC 633, 43; Marubeni Equipment Finance
(Oceania) Pty Ltd v Harris [2018] VCC 267,19.
34It is not necessary to prove any subjective intent to deliberately disobey an order of the Court, provided the person is aware of the order and intentionally undertakes an act constituting a breach. Deliberate defiance or contumacious disregard of the order is relevant to the determination of the appropriate sanction.[4]
[4] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 949, 10;
Marubeni Equipment Finance (Oceania) Pty Ltd v Harris (op cit), 12.
35There are five elements that need to be established, namely:
(a) that an order was made by the Court;
(b) that the terms of the order are clear, unambiguous and capable of compliance;
(c) that the order was served (or failure to serve was excused in the circumstances, or service was dispensed with pursuant to the Rules of the Court);
(d) that the defendant had knowledge of the terms of the orders; and
(e) that the defendant breached the terms of the orders. [5]
[5] Fortune Holding Group Pty Ltd v Zhang (No.2) [2017] VSC 738 (Zhang), 33.
36In the case of a failure to produce documents, it must be proved that not only was the party in possession of the documents at the time of the making of the order, but that that party was in a position to produce them.
37A failure to comply with a subpoena without lawful excuse constitutes a contempt of Court (r 42.12(1)).[6] Mere non-production of documents that are called for by a subpoena is insufficient to establish that there has been a contempt. Instead, it must also be established that the documents required by the subpoena actually exist, and that they were in the possession of the alleged contemnor.[7]
[6] County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2018, r 42.12(1).
[7]Markisic v Commonwealth of Australia (2007) 69 NSWLR 737;[2007] NSWCA 92, 61.
38Insofar as a defendant seeks to rely on particular conduct falling within an exception to a freezing order, the onus lies on the defendant to raise evidence disclosing a reasonable possibility of such an exception. If it does so, the onus will lie on the plaintiff to disprove the proposition beyond reasonable doubt.[8]
[8] Zhang, 34.
39As stated above, the defendants did not provide any evidence or make any submissions in response to the application.
Was an order made by the Court?
40There can be no argument that the Freezing Order and the 31 October Orders were made.
Are the terms of the order are clear, unambiguous and capable of compliance?
41Similarly, there was no submission that the orders were not clear, unambiguous and capable of compliance. I also note that the 31 October Orders were drafted and provided by the parties as Minutes of Consent Orders, so it would be surprising if the defendants disputed their meaning.
Was the order served?
42The defendants by their solicitors acknowledged having been served with the orders. The plaintiff’s affidavit of service confirmed that service of the Freezing Order was effected on 20 October 2023 at 4.58pm.
Did the defendants have knowledge of the terms of the orders?
43Again, there can be no argument that the defendants had knowledge of the terms of the orders, as their solicitors addressed them in open Court each time they sought further time to comply.
Did the defendants breach the terms of the orders?
a) The Freezing Order
44The Freezing Order was addressed to both defendants. Orders 4, 5 and 7 make it clear that both defendants were restrained from dealing with the assets of both Cast Group and Mr Triantafyllos.
45The Freezing Order required the defendants not to deal with any assets up to the value of $350,000.00, subject to the usual right to pay for ordinary living and legal expenses. The relevant parts of the Freezing Order are as follows:
6(a)You must not remove from Australia or in any way dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any of your assets which are in Australia ("Australian assets") up to the unencumbered value of AUD$350,000 ("the relevant amount").
…
7. For the purposes of this order—
(a)your assets include—
(i)all your assets, whether or not they are in your name and whether they are solely or co-owned;
(ii)any asset which you have the power, directly or indirectly, to dispose of or deal with as if it were your own (you are to be regarded as having such power if a third party holds or controls the asset in accordance with your direct or indirect instructions); and
(iii)the motor vehicle.
(b)the value of your assets is the value of the interest you have individually in your assets.
46Mr Triantafyllos filed an affidavit of assets sworn on 26 October 2023. Taking this evidence at its highest, Mr Triantafyllos has a positive asset position of only $12,000.00 and Cast Group has a negative net asset position of $650,000.00. Mr Triantafyllos' calculation is predicated on his shares in Cast Group having a value of $600,000.00. On the evidence before me it appears more likely that Mr Triantafyllos’ shares in Cast Group are worthless, as he has deposed to Cast Group having assets of only $50,000.00 and an outstanding loan of $700,000.00. If that is the case, then (even assuming the shares in Waterdrops Australia Pty Ltd have a value of $200,000.00 as deposed, for which there is no evidence[9]), Mr Triantafyllos purports to have a negative net asset position of $588,000.00 and Cast Group has a negative net asset position of $650,000.00.
[9]The plaintiff submitted that internet searches suggest that Waterdrops Australia Pty Ltd is carwash located in Altona. At the directions hearing on 4 December 2023, Mr Triantafyllos stated that he had ceased operating the carwash.
47In response to a subpoena dated 20 November 2023, Westpac produced account statements in respect of three Westpac accounts in the first defendant’s name as follows:
(a) account 67-6015 in the first defendant’s name;
(b) account 69-2891 in first defendant’s name; and
(c) account 41-9200 in first defendant’s name.
48None of these accounts were disclosed in the defendants’ affidavit of assets.
49The account statements record the substantial dissipation of funds in those accounts, through cash withdrawals and electronic transfers, in breach of the terms of the Freezing Order.
50The withdrawals and transfers which occurred following service of the Freezing Order on 20 October 2023 at 4.58pm,[10] include the following:
[10]There were also withdrawals of nearly $600,000.00 on 20 October 2023, but the plaintiff conceded these may have occurred prior to the service of the Freezing Order at 4.58pm and so I have had not taken these into consideration.
(a) for account 676015, the following withdrawals:
(i)withdrawals totalling $78,200 on 3 November 2023;
(ii)$12,000 on 9 November 2023;
(iii)withdrawals of $5,586.59 and $2,300 on 13 November 2023;
(b) for account 692891:
(i)withdrawals totalling $30,000 on 23 October 2023;
(c) for account 419200:
(i)withdrawals totalling $37,000 on 23 October 2023;
(ii)withdrawals totalling $24,938 on 24 October 2023;
(iii)$20,000 on 25 October 2023;
(iv)withdrawals totalling $35,000 on 27 October 2023;
(v)withdrawals totalling $61,000 on 30 October 2023;
(vi)$20,000 on 31 October 2023;
(vii)withdrawals totalling $158,000 on 2 November 2023;
(viii)withdrawals totalling $71,000 on 3 November 2023;
(ix)withdrawals totalling $80,500 on 6 November 2023;
(x)withdrawals totalling $12,000 on 7 November 2023;
(xi)withdrawals totalling $23,350 on 8 November 2023;
(xii)$5,000 on 9 November 2023; and
(xiii)withdrawals totalling $18,700 on 10 November 2023.
51The terms of the Freezing Order are that the defendants are not to deal with any assets up to the value of $350,000.00. The bank statements show that the balance of the accounts during the period of the withdrawals listed above did not exceed $350,000.00. While some of the withdrawals may have been for ordinary living and legal expenses, the onus is on the defendants to establish this beyond reasonable doubt.[11] They have given no evidence. Further, many of the withdrawals do not appear to fall into that category, for example: purchases at “Cosmopol-Front Desk Las Vegas USA”.
[11]Zhang, 34.
52In the absence of any explanation at all for these 17 withdrawals, and noting that the defendants omitted to include these bank accounts in the affidavit of assets, I am satisfied that the defendants have wilfully and persistently breached the Freezing Order since 21 October 2023.
53The total amounts withdrawn well and truly exceed the amount which the defendants acknowledged in open Court that they owe the plaintiff (see paragraph 11). It is impossible to think of any explanation for this conduct other than it is the most egregious flaunting of the Court’s orders.
b) The 31 October Orders
54Similarly, it is unarguable that the defendants have breached the terms of the 31 October Orders by failing either to make discovery or to file the relevant affidavit. This is not a situation where the defendants have made partial discovery and said they have no further documents. Nevertheless the plaintiff provided examples of documents, such as bank statements and a rental agreement, which would be in the defendants’ possession and which they should have discovered.
55The defendants did not dispute they have failed to comply. They originally agreed (in their minutes of consent orders) to file these affidavits by 1 November 2023. They then sought and were granted multiple extensions of time, including by the 14 November Orders, the 4 December Orders and the 9 February Orders.
56The defendants remain in default and have filed no evidence and made no submissions opposing the plaintiff’s contempt application.
57In those circumstances, each of the criteria for contempt for non-compliance with the orders has been met, and I am satisfied that the defendants are guilty of contempt in respect of this non-compliance.
58This is not to say that every non-compliance with an order to file documents constitutes a contempt of Court. If it were so, many parties in many proceedings would be in contempt. What distinguishes this application is the nature of the orders and the defendants’ conduct, which may be described as contumelious. As the plaintiff noted, one aim of its original application was to find the location of the Vehicle. The defendants offered to provide that information by filing the two affidavits described in the 31 October Orders, rather than attending Court to give viva voce evidence and being cross examined. Since agreeing to that course, the defendants have consistently and wilfully disregarded the orders, without credible explanation or reason. Since being ordered to attend for cross examination Mr Triantafyllos has also failed to attend.
Conclusion on the contempt application
59I find that the plaintiff has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants have committed a prima facie contempt given:
(a) the defendants had knowledge of the Freezing Order and the 31 October Orders; and
(b) the defendants egregiously, deliberately and without any explanation breached the orders in the manner set out above.
60I will list the contempt application together with the other matters already listed on 29 February 2024, at which time the Court may hear submissions, or will set a timetable for submissions and evidence if the parties require further time, as to the appropriate form of orders to be made, including whether a conviction should be recorded, penalty and costs.
Other matters – the non-attendance of the second defendant on 20 February 2024
61As set out in the orders made on 20 February 2024, the second defendant failed to attend the hearing on that date for the purpose of cross examination. His instructions to his solicitor were that he had been involved in a car accident on his way to Court. The plaintiff applied for a warrant to be issued under s 194 of the Evidence Act 2008.[12] I made orders including:
(a) requiring the second defendant to file and serve an affidavit explaining why he did not appear at the hearing and exhibiting any medical certificates and photographs of the alleged car accident by 21 February 2024 at 4.00pm;
(b) failing which a warrant would be issued for his arrest; and
(c) and requiring him to attend cross examination on 29 February 2024.
[12] Evidence Act 2008, s 194.
62On 21 February 2024 at 4.12pm, the defendant’s solicitor filed an affidavit sworn by the second defendant purportedly in compliance with the orders set out above. I will hear any submissions from the plaintiff and I will allow cross examination of the second defendant on the contents of this affidavit on 29 February 2024, including any further application by the plaintiff under s 194 of the Evidence Act 2008. [13]
[13] Evidence Act 2008, s 194.
Other matters – The Unique CR application
63On 1 December 2023, the plaintiff also filed a summons seeking orders for contempt against Unique CR Pty Ltd (Unique CR) in respect of Unique CR’s failure to comply with a Subpoena for Production issued on 3 November 2023. I heard the application on 20 February 2024.
64In the interests of publishing this determination of the contempt application against the defendants before the proceeding resumes on 29 February 2024, I will further reserve my decision on the Unique CR application.
Orders:
1. The plaintiff’s application against the defendants made by summons dated 1 December 2023 is listed for a directions hearing together with the other matters already listed on 29 February 2024. The purpose of the directions hearing is to hear submissions following these Reasons, as to the appropriate form of orders to be made, including whether a conviction should be recorded, penalty and costs. The Court may hear submissions on 29 February 2024 or may set a timetable for submissions and evidence if the parties require further time.
2. The determination of the plaintiff’s summons dated 1 December 2023 for orders for contempt against Unique CR Pty Ltd remains reserved.
3. Reserve liberty to the parties to apply by email to the associates to her Honour Judge Kirton ([email protected]) for further directions upon giving reasonable notice to all other parties.
4. Costs reserved
- - -
Certificate
I certify that these 19 pages are a true copy of the ruling of her Honour Judge Kirton delivered on 27 February 2024.
Dated: 27 February 2024
Tracey Huang
Associate to her Honour Judge Kirton
0
7
0