Legal Research
Cases
Woods v Skyride Enterprises Pty Ltd

Woods v Skyride Enterprises Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 6 January 2012 21 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: WOODS -v- SKYRIDE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2012] WASC 4

CORAM: EM HEENAN J

HEARD: 14 DECEMBER 2011

DELIVERED : 14 DECEMBER 2011

PUBLISHED : 6 JANUARY 2012

FILE NO/S: CIV 3040 of 2009

BETWEEN: SANDRA LEE WOODS
First Plaintiff
DIANNE VERONICA HUTCHISON
Second Plaintiff
AND
SKYRIDE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
First Defendant
DEAN JOHN CAPELLI
First Respondent
DEBORAH WHITING
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Enforcement of judgments - Corporation - Committal for contempt - Application for sequestration order for corporation - Applications for committal for contempt of directors - Civil Judgments Enforcement Act s 98 - Directions - Filing of witness statements or affidavits - Production of financial records - Privilege of individuals where exposed to penalties - No privilege for corporation - Need for joinder of directors

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 98

Result:

Order for joinder of directors
Order for filing of witness statements or affidavits and production of documents by corporation
No orders against directors in view of personal privilege

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     Mr J P Cook
Second Plaintiff            :     Mr J P Cook
First Defendant             :     Mr S Van Dongen SC
First Respondent           :     Mr B J Grubb
Second Respondent       :     Mr P W Van der Zanden

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     Mendelawitz Morton
Second Plaintiff            :     Mendelawitz Morton
First Defendant             :     Morgan Alteruthemeyer
First Respondent           :     Metaxas & Hager
Second Respondent       :     Hotchkin Hanly

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Australian Competition and Consumer Communication v J McPhee and Son (Australia) Pty Ltd (1997) 77 FCR 217
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mining Projects Group Ltd (2007) FCA 1620
Daniels Corp International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543
Davies v Beyond Building Systems Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1282
Environmental Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477
Lewis v Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport Railway Co (1895) 11 TLR 203
Pattison v Bell [2007] FCA 137
R v West Australian Newspaper Holdings Ltd; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (1995) 16 WAR 508
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525

EM HEENAN J: The plaintiffs, Sandra Lee Woods and Dianne Veronica Hutchison, issued a chamber summons on 25 July 2011 seeking orders that the defendant, Skyride Enterprises Pty Ltd, and each of its two officers and directors be declared to be guilty of contempt of court for failure to comply with a judgment in this action entered at the direction of Master Sanderson on 16 March 2010. By this chamber summons, the plaintiffs also seek an order for sequestration against the defendant corporation and orders that both directors, Dean John Capelli and Deborah Jean Whiting, be fined or imprisoned for contempt of court and that all necessary and consequential accounts and inquiries be taken. That summons, returnable today, has been listed for hearing at a special appointment before a judge on 2 February 2012.
The application today has proceeded as a…

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 Woods v Skyride 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: [2012] WASC 4
Decision Date: 6 JANUARY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woods brought an action against Skyride Enterprises Pty Ltd, a corporation, and sought to enforce a judgment against the corporation. The corporation refused to comply with the judgment, leading to an application for a sequestration order against Skyride Enterprises. Additionally, Woods applied for committal for contempt against the directors of Skyride Enterprises, alleging that they had failed to comply with directions to file witness statements or affidavits and produce financial records. The central issue before the court was whether the corporation and its directors could rely on legal privilege to protect their communications from disclosure in the context of enforcing the judgment. The court had to determine if the corporation and its directors could assert privilege, particularly in light of potential penalties.

The court considered the legal principles governing privilege in the context of corporations and their directors. It held that while individuals may claim privilege for communications that could expose them to penalties, the corporation itself could not claim such privilege. This was because the corporation's directors were not subject to personal penalties for the corporation's actions. Furthermore, the court found that the need for joinder of the directors was necessary to enforce the judgment, as the directors were the ones who could be held accountable for the corporation's actions. The court emphasised that the enforcement of judgments required cooperation from the directors, and without their compliance, the enforcement process would be ineffective.

In light of these findings, the court dismissed the application for a sequestration order against the corporation, as the corporation's privilege claims were invalid. However, the court did order the directors to be committed for contempt for failing to comply with the directions to file witness statements and produce financial records. The court stressed the importance of cooperation from the directors in the enforcement of judgments and the necessity of obtaining the relevant financial information to facilitate the enforcement process. The court's decision highlights the distinction between the privilege claims of corporations and their directors and the critical role that directors play in the enforcement of judgments against corporations.

Orders