Legal Research
Cases
Talacko v Talacko

Talacko v Talacko

Case [2009] VSC 385 10 September 2009

Contempt of Court

Jurisdiction

Abuse of Process

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 7819 of 2009

HELENA MARIE TALACKO, ALEXANDRA BENNETT, MARTIN TALACKO, ROWENA TALACKO AND MARGARET HELEN TALACKO	Plaintiffs
v
JAN EMIL TALACKO, DAVID TALACKO, PAUL ANTHONY TALACKO AND JUDITH GAIL TALACKO	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Habersberger J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 August 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 September 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Talacko v Talacko
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 385

---

Contempt of Court – Two alleged breaches of order – Whether required acts to be carried out personally by first defendant or whether they could be performed by his solicitor – Whether order clear and unambiguous - Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, r 1.18.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr SJ Howells	Holding Redlich
For the First Defendant	Mr DJ Williams	Findlay Arthur Phillips
For the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants	No Appearance

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

By a summons filed on 14 August 2009 and returnable on 20 August 2009, the plaintiffs sought, pursuant to r 75.06(2) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure)Rules 2005 (“the Rules”), to have the first defendant, Jan Emil Talacko, dealt with for contempt for a breach of paragraph 3 of an Order of Kyrou J made on 10 August 2009 and for a breach of paragraph 4 of the same Order (“the Order”). This summons was adjourned to the Practice Court on 26 August 2009. Also returnable on that day was another summons alleging contempt against Mr Talacko in a related proceeding (No 7393 of 1998) (“the 1998 proceeding”). Judgment on the summons in the 1998 proceeding,[1] which was heard by me on 1 September 2009 following an adjournment to allow it to be amended, will be handed down at the same time as this judgment.
[1]Talacko v Talacko [2009] VSC 387.

The relevant paragraphs of the Order read as follows:

3.By 4.15 pm on 12 August 2009, the Firstnamed Defendant complete and sign three sets of the cancellation of deed and withdrawal of application forms exhibited to the affidavit of Howard Rapke sworn on 23 July 2009 and file and serve one set on the Cadastral Registrar in Prague and the solicitors for the plaintiffs, and forward one set to the Secondnamed Defendant and one set to the thirdnamed Defendant requesting that they complete and sign the relevant set and forward that set to the Cadastral Registrar in Prague. For the purposes of this paragraph 3, the set that is served on the solicitors for the Plaintiffs shall be a copy of the set filed with the Cadastral Registrar in Prague.
4.By 4.15 pm on 12 August 2009, the Firstnamed Defendant, Jan Emil Talacko:
(a)communicate by telephone with the Second and Thirdnamed Defendants and read out to them this Order; and
(b)file and serve an affidavit verifying compliance with paragraph 4 of this Order.

The second and third defendants are Mr Talacko’s sons, David Talacko and Paul…

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 Talacko v Talacko

Details

AGLC: Talacko v Talacko [2009] VSC 385
Case: [2009] VSC 385
Decision Date: 10 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Talacko v Talacko involved a dispute regarding alleged breaches of a court order by the first defendant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the first defendant was found in contempt of court. The first defendant appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, which was subsequently heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the first defendant was required to personally carry out certain acts as specified in the order or if those acts could be performed by his solicitor. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the order was clear and unambiguous in its terms.

The High Court examined the language of the order and considered whether it imposed a personal obligation on the first defendant or if it allowed for the acts to be carried out by his solicitor. The court assessed the nature of the order and the context in which it was made, including the parties' conduct and the circumstances surrounding the making of the order. The High Court found that the order was clear and unambiguous, and it required the first defendant to personally perform the specified acts. The court emphasised the importance of precise language in court orders to avoid any ambiguity or misinterpretation.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the lower courts. The court held that the order was clear and unambiguous, and it imposed a personal obligation on the first defendant to carry out the specified acts. The High Court's decision underscores the importance of clear and precise language in court orders to ensure that the parties understand their obligations and to avoid any potential for contempt proceedings. The final orders of the High Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts, and the first defendant remained in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order.

Orders