Sigalla v TZ Limited

The appeal concerned a dispute arising from an interlocutory freezing order granted by Austin J on 23 December 2009, which prohibited the selling of property. The second appellant, a corporation, was the subject of this order. The first appellant, an agent acting for the second appellant, was found guilty of contempt of court by the primary judge for breaching the freezing order through entering into a contract for sale of the property.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the first appellant, not being a party to the original freezing order, could be found in breach of that order, and whether the primary judge had applied the correct standard of proof when finding the first appellant guilty of contempt. The court also considered what constituted a "selling" of property in the context of the freezing order.

The Court of Appeal held that a non-party to an order cannot be in breach of that order, although they may be guilty of contempt of court in other ways. The primary judge erred by failing to distinguish between the second appellant's breach of the order and the first appellant's alleged contempt. Furthermore, the court found that the standard of proof for civil and criminal contempt is beyond reasonable doubt, and the primary judge had not referred to this standard, instead drawing inferences as if hearing a civil matter. The court concluded that entering into a contract for sale in respect of the property constituted a "selling" and therefore breached the terms of the freezing order.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by Austin J on 23 December 2009 were set aside. The court made no order for costs of the appeal, but did not disturb the order for costs made below. Liberty was granted to apply to a judge of the Equity Division if difficulties arose in the repayment of fines.