Timania Pty Ltd v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd - [2004] FCA 732

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Timania Pty Ltd v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 732
CONTEMPT OF COURT – what constitutes – proceedings commenced – intention to punish plaintiff – termination of contract – whether termination lawful
Attorney-General’s Application, Attorney-General v Butterworth, In re [1963] 1 QB 696 followed
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273 applied
Carew v Carew Corporation Pty Ltd (unreported, 23 April 1993, Supreme Court of Western Australia, Full Court) distinguished
Castledine v Boronga Pty Ltd [2000] WASC 215 distinguished
Chapman v Honig [1963] 2 QB 502 applied
Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd v Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees’ Union (No 2) (1987) 15 FCR 64 cited
Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573 cited
Doyle v The Commonwealth of Australia (1985) 156 CLR 510 cited
Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 cited
Hinch v The Attorney-General for the State of Victoria (1987) 164 CLR 15 cited
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351 followed
Lane v The Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Equity Division) (1981) 148 CLR 245 cited
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 cited
Morris v Wellington City [1969] NZLR 1038 cited
Regina v Kellett [1976] QB 372 distinguished
Regina v Odhams Press Ltd Ex parte Attorney-General [1957] 1 QB 73 followed
Regina v Toney [1993] 1 WLR 364 approved
TheSt. James’ Evening PostCase: Roach v Garvan 2 Atk 469 [26 ER 683] referred to
The State of Victoria v The Australian Building Construction Employees’ and Builders Labourers’ Federation (1982) 152 CLR 25 cited
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525 applied
TIMANIA PTY LTD and WAYNE TONER v INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
V 415 of 2004
FINKELSTEIN J
9 JUNE 2004
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 415 of 2004

BETWEEN:

TIMANIA PTY LTD and
WAYNE TONER
Applicants

AND:

INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

FINKELSTEIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 JUNE 2004

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicants be granted leave to amend their statement of charge filed 13 May 2004 to read:

As Against Christopher Turner: On about 23 April 2004 you did instruct persons within Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd that no extra work should be given to Timania Pty Ltd whilst Wayne Toner and Timania Pty Ltd were suing Inghams Pty Ltd.
As Against Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd: On and from 23 April 2004, Inghams Pty Ltd refused to grant extra work to Wayne Toner and Timania Pty Ltd for the reason that Timania Pty Ltd and Wayne Toner are suing Inghams Pty Ltd.

2.Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd be adjudged guilty of contempt and until further order it shall continue to engage Timania Pty Ltd in accordance with the contract made in April 2004 to carry all additional produce from its depot in Thomastown to the storage facilities in Doveton provided however that it be at liberty to apply to discharge this injunction on 72 hours’…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Timania Pty Ltd v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] FCA 732
Decision Date: 9 JUNE 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Timania Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking relief related to the refusal of Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd to provide additional work to Timania Pty Ltd. The dispute arose in the context of an existing contract between the parties, which provided for Timania Pty Ltd to transport produce from Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd's depot in Thomastown to its storage facilities in Doveton. The relief sought included an injunction requiring Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd to engage Timania Pty Ltd for additional work, as well as damages for the loss of income caused by the refusal to provide such work.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and enforcement of the contractual agreement between the parties and the assessment of the contempt proceedings against Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd and one of its directors, Christopher Turner. The court had to determine whether Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd's refusal to grant additional work to Timania Pty Ltd constituted a breach of contract and whether such conduct warranted a finding of contempt. The court also needed to address the appropriateness of the relief sought by Timania Pty Ltd, including the issuance of an injunction and the imposition of fines.

In resolving the issues, the court found that Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd's refusal to provide additional work to Timania Pty Ltd constituted a breach of the contractual agreement and that such conduct warranted a finding of contempt. The court granted Timania Pty Ltd leave to amend its statement of charge to accurately reflect the alleged misconduct by Christopher Turner and Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd. It held Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd in contempt and issued an injunction requiring it to engage Timania Pty Ltd for additional work, subject to certain conditions. Additionally, the court found Christopher Turner guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of $5000, which was to be paid within 14 days to the District Registrar of the Federal Court. If the fine was not paid within the specified time, the District Registrar was directed to take action to recover the amount and pay it to the Commonwealth. Finally, the court ordered Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd to pay Timania Pty Ltd's costs of the motion, to be taxed on an indemnity basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants be granted leave to amend their statement of charge filed 13 May 2004 to read:

As Against Christopher Turner: On about 23 April 2004 you did instruct persons within Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd that no extra work should be given to Timania Pty Ltd whilst Wayne Toner and Timania Pty Ltd were suing Inghams Pty Ltd.

As Against Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd: On and from 23 April 2004, Inghams Pty Ltd refused to grant extra work to Wayne Toner and Timania Pty Ltd for the reason that Timania Pty Ltd and Wayne Toner are suing Inghams Pty Ltd.

2. Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd be adjudged guilty of contempt and until further order it shall continue to engage Timania Pty Ltd in accordance with the contract made in April 2004 to carry all additional produce from its depot in Thomastown to the storage facilities in Doveton provided however that it be at liberty to apply to discharge this injunction on 72 hours’ notice.

3. Christopher Turner be adjudged guilty of contempt and he be fined $5000, such fine to be paid within 14 days to the District Registrar of the Federal Court.

4. If the fine is not paid within the time specified in order 3 the District Registrar shall take action to recover the said amount and shall pay it to the Commonwealth.

5. Inghams Pty Ltd pay the applicants’ costs of this motion, such costs to be taxed on an indemnity basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

FINKELSTEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FINKELSTEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 415 of 2004

BETWEEN:	TIMANIA PTY LTD and WAYNE TONER Applicants
AND:	INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD Respondent
JUDGE:	FINKELSTEIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 JUNE 2004
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE