Squires, Richard James v Stephenson, Keith

[1981] FCA 287

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

10 February 1981 KEELY J.

I . d o n o t need t o hear you, Mr Girmane, a s I have decided

t o grant t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . I have read t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i ted

by counsel on both s i d e s .

cccurring bci 'orn t h c s e r v i c e o.i the o r d e r urpon the accuseci

p e ~ s o n i:: ~ ~ c c o r d a n . c e with Order 40 ru1.e I .3(1). I c10 not accept

t h a t subnlissi.on. Th? view tha-L- I t a k e is t h a t , on the wording

of that rule, it p r c s c r i b e s a cond i t ion be fo re proceedings ::re

conmenced. Flowever, provided t h a t such se rv ice of t h e o r d e r

has been ca r r i ed ou t , it would n o t p r e v m t proceedings i n

respec-i; o f 2n alleged- contenpt of cour t occurr j .ng before such

service. The ru le does no t say t h a t s u c h s e r v i c e m u s t have

occurred before t h e a l l eged contempt nor does i t imply i t i n

my opin ion . It simply reouires t h a t such s e r v i c e will have

been ef fec ted before the commencement of t h e proceedings -

i r r e s p e c t l v e o f whether the alleged contempt occurred before

o r after t h e service. That reading of t h e rule seems t o me t o

g a i n some support from what S i r Nigel Bowen s a i d i n the

S u n i b r i t e case (47 F.L.R. 73 at p.76) .

111 my opinion t h e purpose o f Order 40 rule 13(l) is t o

ensure t h a t , s u b j e c t t o r e l i e f f rom t h e rule being granted by

the c o u r t under Order 1 rule 8, a person s h a l l n o t be subjec ted

to proceedings f o r contempt of c m r t u n l e s s he has been served w i t h the order and i t has been endorsed i n t h e manner requi red

by Ord.er 40 r u l e 13(1). In t h i s c a s e t h a t purpose has been

achieved by the a c t i o n of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' s o l i c i t o r s ,

Messrs Turner Freeman, a s appea r s from their l e t t e r t o the

a p p l i c a n t ' s s o l i c i t o r s dated 1-0 August 1981.

I am unab le to read i t i n t h e vzy PIT ICenzie w g e s . Nor do I -

cons ider the words ambiguous. I t h i n k probably my views on

t h i s h a v e become a p p a r e n t i n the course of t he hea r ing by

reason of t he ma t t e r s I r a i s e d w i t h Mr Kenzie. Accordingly,

I s h a l l only express them b r i e f l y . F i r s t l y , i n my opin ion the

words !*our clierrts", r ead in the con t , ex t of t h e l e t t e r a s a

whole, r e f e r t o a l l o f the r e sponden t s i n t h e s e proceedings,

each o f whom i s i n f a c t a c l i e n t of Messrs Turn.er Freeman.

I n r e s p e c t o f e a c h c l i e n t a formal n o t i c e o f appearaRce has

been entered in these p roceed ings by Messrs Turner Freeman.

I n a d d i t i o n , a t t h e e a r l i e r hea r ing Messrs Turner Freeman

ins t ruc t ed counse l on,.behal€ o f a l l o f i t s c l i e n t s who were

respondents in . the proceedings . A t t h a t h e a r i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t

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

Turner Freeman's c l ients and t h o s e c l i e n t s w e r e p a r t i a l l y

s u c c e s s f u l i n t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n for a change of venue i n t h e

proceedings f rom Melbourne t o Sydney.

- ln my view t h o s e words refer t o a l l o f t h e c l i e n t s , who

arc respondents t o these proceedings. I may add t h a t no

evidence was l e d by the respon.d.ents t o sugges t t ha t . t he w0rd.s

Itour c l i e n t s f t i n the l e t t e r r e f e r r ed t o on ly two of the n ine teen

respondents for whom r4essrS Turner Freeman were a c t i n g i n t h e s e

prcceedings. I337 l e t t e r d a t e d 31 January 1982 i4r Macken wrote t o

Messrs Turner Freeman, referrec?. t o t h e i r l e t t e r , of 10 August

1981 and mace it c l e a r t h a t he had interpreted- the words f lour

c l i e n t s " in Messrs Turner Freeman's l e t t e r of 10 August 1931 as

meaning a l l of t h e respondents in these p roceedings . On t h e

e v i d e n c e t h a t l e t t e r was hand de l ive red t o Messrs Turner Freeman

on. Wednesday, 3 February 1952, i . e . a week ago. I f t h e words

llour c l i e n t s " i n Messrs Turner Freeman's ' let ter of 10 August

were intended. t o refer t o on ly two of tile respondents and n o t to

r e f e r t o the other seventeen rpspondents , then one would heve

expecrleci F'iessrs T u m e r Freeman to ;)romptly tzke s t e p s t o infol-n

K r ; hckcn t h a t he had rnisundcrs-imod. the words "our c l i e n t s " in

t :ke i r esrlier l e t t e r . However, n o evidence has been placveci b e f o r s

me t o suggest t h a t ?'iessrs Turner Freemall ever took tha-t s t e p ,

5 .

This appl icat ion tod.ay i s . concerned with respondents

who, on t h e on ly ma te r i a l be fo re me, have lwd the con ten t s c;f

t h e orders brought t o t he i r a . t t en . t i on - I am r e f e r r i n g t o t h e

words "our c l ien ts a re w e l l awsre of the Orders which were

mad.e" - by t h e i r own s o l i c i t o r s and they have had the e f f e c t

of any possibl-e breach o f any o f those orders explained t o then.

It seems t o me tha t i n those c i r cums tances the pu rpose of

Order 40 r u l e 13(l) has been achieved and justice d.oes n o t

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 u2on the ru l e be ing conp l i ed with;

i n o t h e r words it seems t o n e t o be a proper case to gr2n. t t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n .

I would l i k e t o make it c l e a r t h a t t h e o r d e r made does no t

i n any way p re jud ice the r i g h t s of t he r e sponden t s i n r e spec t o f

any p r o c e e d h g s f o r contempt which may subsequently be brought

before the cour t . The order merely dispenses the applicant from

the requi rement tha t , before commencillg proceedings €or contern&

there must be personal se rv ice o f t h e order, o r a c e r t i f i e d o r

o f f i c e copy o f i t , on the persons aga ins t whom the proceedings

a re conters_nl.zted, viil.ch o r d e r has t o be en.d.orsed with the

s ta tement set a ~ t ic t h e riles a s t o the e f f e c t o f disobedience