Legal Research
Cases
Tate v Duncan-Strelec

Tate v Duncan-Strelec

Case [2019] NSWSC 1383 11 October 2019

Contempt of Court

Injunction

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2019] NSWSC 1383
Hearing dates: 30 and 31 January 2019
Decision date: 11 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Defendant guilty of four charges of contempt

Catchwords: PROCEDURE – Contempt, attachment and sequestration – Contempt – What constitutes – Injunctions to restrain contempt
Cases Cited: Amanda Duncan-Strelec & Ors v Thomas Richard Tate & Ors [2010] NSWSC 872
Attorney-General v Butterworth [1963] 1 QB 696
Clarkson v The Mandarin Club Ltd and Others [1998] FCA 1685; (1998) 90 FCR 354
Mahaffy v Mahaffy [2018] NSWCA 42; (2018) 97 NSWLR 119
McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1058
R v Dunbabin; Ex parte Williams [1935] HCA 34; (1935) 53 CLR 434
R v Gray [1900] 2 QB 36
Re Colina; Ex parte Torney [1999] HCA 57; (1999) 200 CLR 386
R v Hoser and Kotabi Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 443
Solicitor-General v Radio Avon Ltd [1978] 1 NZLR 225
Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1125
Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2015] NSWSC 190
Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525
Yeshiva Properties No 1 Pty Ltd v Lubavitch Mazal Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 775
Texts Cited: Borrie & Lowe, Law of Contempt (3rd ed 1996)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Thomas Richard Tate (Plaintiff)
Amanda Duncan-Strelec (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:

G.R. Rubagotti (Plaintiff)

Solicitors:
Hickey Lawyers (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2018/91914
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Summary

These proceedings are the second set of contempt proceedings to come to judgment between these parties.
The Plaintiff, Thomas Tate, is the current Mayor of the Gold Coast and has held that position since April 2012 (the “Plaintiff”). The Plaintiff is also a property developer and tourism industry operator on the Gold Coast. The Defendant, Amanda Duncan-Strelec (the “Defendant”), was formerly Mayor of Albury. She met the Plaintiff in 1999 when the Defendant was the Plaintiff’s campaign manager in his first, unsuccessful, campaign to become Mayor of the Gold Coast. The Plaintiff and the Defendant became friends and were also business partners.
The relationship soured after the parties entered into a commercial project together to develop land at Lavington in New South Wales. In 2006, the Defendant, her husband, David Strelec, and a company of which they were then directors, Dunlec Pty Ltd, commenced proceedings against the Plaintiff, his wife and a company of which the Plaintiff was a director, Wamego Pty Ltd, and asserted various claims regarding the development of the land.
Those proceedings were heard by Nicholas J. By a judgment delivered on 6 August 2010 his Honour dismissed the claim. The Defendant and her co-plaintiffs were ordered to pay the Plaintiff’s costs and those of his wife and Wamego Pty Ltd. The Defendant and her co-plaintiffs did not appeal from this judgment.
The costs orders made by Nicholas J were enforced with the result that Dunlec Pty Ltd was wound up in April 2011 and the Defendant and her husband were…

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 Tate v Duncan-Strelec

Details

AGLC: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2019] NSWSC 1383
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1383
Decision Date: 11 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia heard an appeal from the decision of a judge of the District Court of South Australia, who found the appellant in contempt of court and sentenced him to imprisonment. The respondent, Duncan-Strelec, was the judgment creditor in a proceeding brought by the appellant, Tate, against her. The respondent had obtained a judgment for $10,000 and a further sum for costs. The appellant was found to be in contempt of court for breaching an order which restrained him from disposing of certain assets. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the appellant was in contempt of court and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had not erred in finding that the appellant was in contempt of court. The court found that the appellant had breached the order which restrained him from disposing of certain assets. The court held that the appellant had deliberately attempted to defeat the judgment debt and that his actions were contemptuous of the court's authority. The Court of Appeal also held that the sentence imposed was appropriate, given the appellant's deliberate and contemptuous conduct. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the appellant pay the costs of the appeal to the respondent. The court further ordered that the appellant be imprisoned for a period of six months, with a non-parole period of three months, for the contempt of court. The Court of Appeal also ordered that the appellant be released on bail pending the outcome of any further appeals.

Orders