Legal Research
Cases
Re Mycorp Pty Ltd

Re Mycorp Pty Ltd

Case [2014] NSWSC 1180 27 August 2014

Contempt of Court

Costs

Admissibility of Evidence

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Mycorp Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1180
Hearing dates: 29 July 2014
Decision date: 27 August 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Corporations List
Before: Black J
Decision:
Judgment in favour of relevant defendants against the plaintiff in relevant amounts with interest. Plaintiff to pay first defendant's costs of notice of motion on indemnity basis. Orders deferred for seven days for parties to be heard as to precise form of orders.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - contempt, attachment and sequestration - contempt of court - penalty - whether orders can be made returning relevant monies to companies' bank accounts - whether orders made by consent constituted an implied contract between the parties - considerations relevant to imposition of penalty - whether order for costs against contemnor on indemnity basis constitutes a sufficient penalty.
Legislation Cited: - Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 100
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A
- Fines Act 1996 (NSW) s 6
- Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Pt 55, r 13
Cases Cited: - Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Michalik [2004] NSWSC 1259; (2004) 52 ACSR 115
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sigalla (No 4) [2011] NSWSC 62; (2011) 80 NSWLR 113
- Capel v Caram Finance Australia Ltd (Supreme Court (QLD), Muir J, 29 May 1998, unrep)
- Chapman v Honig [1963] 2 QB 502; 2 All ER 513
- Circuit Finance Australia (recs and mgrs apptd) (in liq) v Sobbi [2010] NSWSC 912
- Environmental Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246
- Fairclough & Sons v Manchester Ship Canal Co (No 2) (1897) 41 SJ 225
- McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 448
- McIntyre v Perkes (1988) 15 NSWLR 417
- Midland Marts Ltd v Hobday [1989] 3 All ER 246
- NCR Australia Pty Ltd v Credit Connection Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1118
- Re Agreement of the Mileage Conference Group of the Tyre Manufacturers Conference Ltd [1966] 2 All ER 849
- Re Hudson (decd); Hudson v Hudson [1966] Ch 209; (1966) 1 All ER 110
- Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Fred Fajloun (Plaintiff/Respondent)
George Khoury (First Defendant/Applicant)
Mycorp Group Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Moonstone River Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)
Summer Tides Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant)
Snowy Falls Pty Ltd (Fifth Defendant)
Telnac Pty Ltd (Sixth Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
M Condon SC (Plaintiff/Respondent)
J C Kelly SC (First Defendant/Applicant)
Solicitors:
Sage Lawyers (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Bamford Lawyers (First Defendant/Applicant)

File Number(s): 2012/350220

Judgment

Background

These proceedings involve a dispute concerning the management of service stations operated by companies associated with the Plaintiff, Mr Fred Fajloun, and the First Defendant, Mr George Khoury. An order was made by Brereton J on 14 November 2012, by consent of the parties, requiring that Mr Fajloun and Mr Khoury take certain steps in respect of cash takings for each of the businesses…

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 Re Mycorp Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re Mycorp Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1180
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1180
Decision Date: 27 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Mycorp Pty Ltd involved a dispute regarding contempt of court, specifically whether orders could be made to return relevant monies to the companies' bank accounts. The matter was heard in a relevant Australian court. The central issue was whether the orders made by consent between the parties constituted an implied contract and, if so, the considerations relevant to the imposition of a penalty. Additionally, the court considered whether an order for costs against the contemnor on an indemnity basis constituted a sufficient penalty.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the orders made by consent between the parties constituted an implied contract, which would bind the parties and potentially mitigate the contempt. The court also had to determine the appropriate penalty for the contempt of court, taking into account the implications of the implied contract and whether an order for costs on an indemnity basis was sufficient. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the contempt against the potential for rehabilitation and deterrence.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the nature of the orders made by consent and found that they did not constitute an implied contract that could absolve the contemnor of their obligations. The court emphasised that contempt of court is a serious matter and that penalties must be imposed to maintain the integrity of the judicial system. The court considered that an order for costs on an indemnity basis was a sufficient penalty in the circumstances, as it would compensate the affected parties and serve as a deterrent against future contempt. The court ultimately imposed the order for costs and provided guidance on the considerations relevant to the imposition of penalties in similar cases.

The final orders of the court included an order for costs against the contemnor on an indemnity basis, reflecting the court's determination that this constituted a sufficient penalty for the contempt. The court's decision provided clarity on the nature of implied contracts in the context of contempt of court and the factors relevant to penalty imposition, offering guidance for future cases.

Orders