Rajski and Raybos Australia Ltd v Carson and Tectran Corporation

The parties to this matter were Rajski and Raybos Australia Ltd (appellants) and Carson and Tectran Corporation (respondents). The dispute concerned the respondents' motions for contempt, which had been held in abeyance pending the hearing of principal proceedings, in accordance with earlier court rulings. The principal proceedings had not been heard and, according to the appellants, had been settled. The Registrar had determined that the contempt motions should now proceed, a decision the appellants sought to review. The appeal was heard by Stein JA, Young CJ in Eq, and Brownie AJA.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar had erred in allowing the contempt motions to proceed, given that the principal proceedings had not been heard and were allegedly settled. The appellants argued that the Registrar's decision effectively overruled a previous three-judge court ruling and that the contempt motions should be deferred until the outcome of an equity suit concerning the alleged settlement was determined.

The court upheld the Registrar's decision, reasoning that the earlier rulings were made in the context of the principal proceedings being active. With those proceedings now settled, the basis for holding the contempt motions in abeyance no longer existed. The court found no error in the Registrar's determination that the motions should proceed. The court further ordered that the contempt applications, including Mr Carson's motions to dismiss them, be remitted to the Common Law Division for hearing with appropriate priority. The application to review the Registrar's decision was dismissed with costs.