FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Re.Group Pty Ltd v Kazal (No 7) [2019] FCA 387
File number: NSD 2080 of 2016 Judge: PERRAM J Date of judgment: 22 March 2019 Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT – imposition of fine – whether counts arose from single episode of offending – where counts did not involve contumacious flouting of Court’s orders Cases cited: AGL Energy Limited v Hardy (No 2) [2017] FCA 863
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 181; 340 ALR 25
Live Group Pty Ltd v Rabbi Ulman [2018] NSWSC 393
Re.Group Pty Ltd v Kazal (No 4) [2017] FCA 1084
Re.Group Pty Ltd v Kazal (No 5) [2018] FCA 546
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Intellectual Property Sub-area: Copyright and Industrial Designs Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 7 Solicitor for the Applicants: Ashurst Australia Solicitor for the Respondents: Mitry Lawyers ORDERS
NSD 2080 of 2016 BETWEEN: RE.GROUP PTY LTD ACN 166 255 947
First Applicant
NAVEEN DAVID SINGH
Second Applicant
AND: ADAM KAZAL
First Respondent
CHARIF KAZAL
Second Respondent
TAWFIK ELGAZZAR
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
PERRAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 MARCH 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Second Respondent pay to the Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia a fine of $25,000 within 28 days of this order.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PERRAM J:
On 25 September 2017 I concluded that the Second Respondent, Mr Charif Kazal, was guilty of civil contempt: Re.Group Pty Ltd v Kazal (No 4) [2017] FCA 1084. On 3 October 2017 I made an order convicting him of three counts of civil contempt. The relevant orders and declarations were as follows:
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.The Second Respondent is guilty of civil contempt of the Federal Court of Australia by his conduct in breaching order 6 of the orders made by Griffiths J on 6 December 2016 (‘Orders’), by publishing on the website (‘Website’), after 6 December 2016, the following representations, or representations substantially the same as the following representations:
a.the Second Applicant is a corporate thief;
b.the Second Applicant committed crimes by stealing from Charif Kazal and Tony Kazal, being crimes which warranted his imprisonment;
c.the Second Applicant stole Charif Kazal’s and Tony Kazal’s shares in Global Renewables Limited;
d.the Second Applicant stole $180 million from Charif Kazal and Tony Kazal;
e.the Second Applicant stole the company Global Renewables Limited from Charif Kazal and Tony Kazal.
2.The Second Respondent is guilty of civil contempt of the Federal Court of Australia…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Re.Group Pty Ltd v Kazal (No 7) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] FCA 387
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court were primarily concerned with the interpretation and application of the contempt provisions. The Court had to decide whether the contempt counts were sufficiently connected to warrant a single fine or if they should be considered separately. Additionally, the Court needed to assess whether the acts of the Respondent amounted to a contumacious flouting of the Court’s orders, which would impact the severity of the penalty. The Court also had to balance the need to maintain the authority of the Court against the Respondent’s right to a fair and proportionate penalty.
In reaching its decision, the Court considered the specific facts and circumstances of the case. It concluded that while the acts of contempt did not involve a contumacious flouting of the Court’s orders, they did arise from a single episode of offending. The Court determined that a single fine was appropriate given the nature of the contempt and the Respondent’s conduct. The Court imposed a fine of $25,000, to be paid by the Second Respondent within 28 days. The Court’s decision was based on the need to uphold the authority of the Court while also ensuring that the penalty was fair and proportionate to the offence committed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Second Respondent pay to the Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia a fine of $25,000 within 28 days of this order.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.