Squires, R.J. v Stephenson, K.

[1982] FCA 10

i

!

Respondents

!

10 February 1981 KEELY J.

I do n o t n e e d t o hear you, M r Cilmane, as I have declderl

t o g r a n t t h e a p p l l c a t i o n . I h a v e r e a d t h e a u T h o r i t i e s c i t e d

by counsel on b ~ t h s l d e s .

i

1 '

-. 7

o c c u r r j n g b e i o r e t h e s e r v l c e of t he o rde r upon the accused

i

pe r son in acco rdance wi.th Order 40 ru1.e 13(1). I do no t accep t

t h a t s u i ~ m l s s l o n . The view tha-t 1 t a k e 1s t h a t , on t h e wordlng

o f t ha t i -u l e , It p r e s c r l h e s a cond i t lon be fc re p roceed ings z re

I

commenced. Fourever, p r o v i d e d t h a t such s e r v l c e of t!:e ord2,r

h a s b e e n c a r r l e d o u t , li would n o t p r e v e n t p r o c e e d m g s I n

~-espec' i of 811 a l leged contempt of cour t occur r lng before such

s e r v i c e . The r u l e d o e s n o t say t h a t s u c h s e r v i c e n u s t h a v e

occur red be fo re the k l l rged con tempt no r does It m p l y I t i n

my opln lon . I t slmply requl res tha t such se rv i .ce will have

been e f f ec t ed be fo re the comuencement of the proceedings -

~ r r e s p e c t ~ . v e o f whether the al leged. contempt occurred before

o r after t h e s e r v i c e . T h a t r e a d l n g of t h e r u l e seems t o me t o

g a l n some support from what S l r Nige l Eou!en sald i n the

S u n l b r l t e c a s e (47 F.L.R. 73 a t p . 7 6 ) .

1

I n my oplnion the purpose of Order 40 r u l e 13(1) i s t o

e n s u r e t h a t , s u b j e c t t o r e l i e f f r o m t h e r u l e b e i n g g r a n t e d h-{

thr : court under Order 1 r u l e 8, a p e r s o n s h a l l n o t b e s u b j e c t e d

t o p r o c e e d m g s f o r contempt of cvdrt unless he has b ren se rved

J

1~1 th the o rde r and It has been endorsed i n t h e manner r e q u l r e d

by Order 1tO r u l e 13(1). In t h l s c a s e t h a t p u r p o s e h a s b e e n

ach ieved by the ac t lon of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' s o l l c i t o r s ,

Messrs Turner Freeman, as appears f rom the l r l e t te r to the

applicant's s o l i c l t o r s d a t e d 10 August 1981.

A s t o tha t l e t t e r , Xr Kenzls advmced an ab1.y p re sen ted

a rgumen t t ha t t he words "our clients" 111 the s econd and l a s t

pa rag raphs r e fe r r ed on?y tc t w c l i e p t s , n a m e l y , t h e F l i g h t

S tewards Assoc~ot :on T,ir S n l t h , t h e f e d e r a l . s e c r e t a r y o f

I h a v e l o o k e d c a r e f u l l y a t t h e l e t t e r o€ 10 August 1951.

1 em u n a b l e t o re2d it i n t h e way Nr KenzFe u rges . Nor do I

co rx ide r t he words ambiguous. I t h m k p r o b a b l y my vlelrs on

t h l s h a v e become apparent 111 t ,he course of t h e h e a r i n g by

r eason o f t ne ma t t e r s I r a s e d with Xr Kenzie. Accordmgly.

1 s h a l l o n l y e x p r e s s them b r i e r l y . F i r s t l y , I n my opin lon t h e

words clients'!. r e a d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e l e t t e r a s a

w h o l e , r e € e r t o a l l o f t he r e sponden tz In these p roceed lngs ,

each of whom i s In f a c t a c l l e n t o f T.?essrs Turner Freeman.

In r e s p e c t o f e a c h c l l e n t a f o r m 1 not lce of appearacce has

been en te red In these p roceed lngs by IVIessrs Turner Freenan.

In a d d l t l o n , a t t h e e a r k e r h e a r m $ Kcssrs Turner Freeman

i n s t r u c t e d c o u n s e l on b e h a l f o f a l l o f i t s c l i e n t s who were

respondents in t he p roceed lngs . A t t h a t h e a r m & t h e a p p l l c a c t

succeeded i n o b t a m i n g i n t e r m o r d e r s a g a l n s t e a c h o f Messrs

T u r n e r F r e e m a n ' s c l l e n t s a n d t h o s e c l l e n t s w e r e p a r t i a l l y

successful. I n their a p p l ~ c a t i o n f o r a change of venue In the

proceedlngs from Flelbourne to Sydney.

!

4 .

addres sed to P le s s r s Turne r F reeman ra the r t hnn d l r ec t t o the

c l i e n t s . T h a t i n turn 1s fo l lowed by t he l a s t pa rag raph , ~ :h l c l ?

hss been debated a t sone l e n g t h h e r e , c o n t a m i n & t h e a s s u r a n c e

by jriessrs Turner Freemen t o i k Macken t h a t ' tour c l i e n t s a r e

well m.'d,-e of the orders whlch vere mzde" 2nd llhzve taken every

s t ?p t o da t e t o ensu re compl l ance w i th t he Orde r s " . The

paragraph cont lnued "You call r z s t a s s u r e d t h a t "e have explained

t l l e e f f e c t o f a breach o€ a'ly of t r e Orde r s 'to o u r c l ~ e n t s and

it 1s c e r t a m l y n o t t h e i r z n t e n t i o n t o do any th ing con t r a ry t o

the Orders".

In my v iev thos? words r e f e r t o a l l o f t h e c l l e n t s , vho

m e respondpnts to these p roceedlngs . I may add t h a t n o

evidence was l e d b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o s u g g e s t t h a t the words

I t o u r c l i e n t s " i n the l e t t e r r e f e r r e d t o o n l y two of t'ne n i n e t e e n

respondents for whom PIessrs Turner Freeman were actlng i n t h e s e

procezdlngs. Ry l e t t e r d a t e d 31 January 1982 Mr Naclcen w r o t e t o

Messrs Turner Freeman, referred r o t h e i r l e t t e r o f 10 August

1931 and made it c l e a r t h a t h e h a d i n t e r p r e t e d t h e w o r d s l l o u r

c l i e n t s " 1 n Messrs Turner Freeman's l e t t e r of 10 August 1981 a s

meaning all of the respondents i n these p roceedlngs . On t h e

e v l d e n c e t h a t l e t t e r was hand delivered t o Messrs Turner Freeman

on Wednesday, 3 February 1932, i . e . a week ago. If the words

'four c l i e n t s " i n Messrs T u r n e r F r e r n a n ' s ' l e t t e r o f 10 August

w e r e i n t e n d e d t o r e f e r t o only two of the respondents and not t o

r e fe r t o the o the r s even teen r e sponden t s , t hen one wou ld have

expected Messrs Tur1:er Freeman t o y r o n p t l y t a k e steps t o lnforrn

Mr Xachen khat he had misunderstood the words Itour clients" In

t h e n e a r l j e r 1 c l . t e r . However, no evidence has been placed beforc-

me t o s u g g e s t t h a t Uess r s Tumer Freeman e v e r t o o k t h a t s t e p ,

5 .

e l t h c r by 1 6 t t e r o r te l .ephone durmg the past week. Nor wcs

it suggested t o Nr Macken m c ross exammat ion today the t m y

such s t eps had been Laben or t h a t he had mlsunderstood the

mcanlng of tl1s words.

T h i s a p p l l c a t i o n t o d a y 1 s concerned with respondents

who, on the on ly ma te r~ . a l be fo re me, havt. hed the c o n t e n t s Gf

t h e o r d e r s b r o u g h t t o t h e l r attention - 1 am r e f e r r i n g t o t h e

words "our c l l e n t s a r e w~ll aware of the Orders rhicl i were

made" - by t h e i r own s o l i c i t o r s and t r ,ey have hed the effect

o f any possj-ble breach of any of t h o s e orc!crs explained t G them.

I t seems t o me khat i n t h o s e circumstances Lhe purpose of

Order h0 r u l e 13(1) has been achieved and jus t ice does not

r e q u i r e t h a t t h e c o u r t i n s i s t uPon t h e r u l e being compliec! with;

i n o t h e r w o r d s	it	seems	t o ne	t o b e	a	proper	c a s e t o g r a n t t h e
appl i .cat lon.

I would l l k e to make I t c l e a r t h a t the o r d e r made does 1 3 0 ~

i n any way p r e j u d l c e t h e r i g h t s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s i n respect of

any proceedlngs for contempt which may subsequent ly be broughc

b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . The order mere ly d i spenses the appl icant f rom

t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t , b e f o r e commenc~.ng proceedlngs f o r contr?mpt,

there must b e p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e o f t h e o r d e r , o r a c e r t l f l e d o r

o f f i c e copy of i t , on the persons agalnst whom the proceedlngs

a re contempleted, which older has to be endorsed with the

s t a t emen t s e t ob? L? che r w l e s a s t o t h e e f f e c t o f d l s o b e d i e n c e

of that o r d e r .

i	,	a
i	l
!
i
!