Barfoot v O'Meara
[2019] NZHC 2217
•5 September 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2018-404-686
[2019] NZHC 2217
UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 IN THE MATTER
of Tamaki Estuary Protection Society In.
BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER BARFOOT, BETHANY MEGAN EVANS, JAMES REGINALD SINCLAIR, JULIE CHAMBERS,
CHARLES WORTH, OLIVER HOFFMAN, DORTHE SIGGAARD, SIU MAN, LORA YOUNG, BARBARA SHAW
Plaintiffs/ApplicantsAND
PATRICK GORDON O’MEARA
First Respondent
AND
DENNY NGAHAUEWHA THOMPSON
Second Respondent
AND
TAMAKI ESTUARY PROTECTION SOCIETY
Third Respondent
Hearing: 28 August 2019 Appearances:
R Pidgeon for Applicants
No appearance for Respondents
KM Muller, as counsel assisting the CourtJudgment:
5 September 2019
JUDGMENT OF WALKER J
This judgment was delivered by me on 5 September 2019 at 3.00 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
BARFOOT & ORS v O’MEARA [2019] NZHC 2217 [5 September 2019]
[1] The applicants seek orders holding the respondents, Mr O’Meara and Mr Thompson, in contempt of court. They say the respondents have wilfully failed to comply with an Order made by Edwards J to deliver up documents in their possession.
[2] Neither Mr O’Meara or Mr Thompson have taken steps in relation to the contempt application. Neither appeared at the hearing before me.
Background
[3] It is unnecessary to traverse the full background which is helpfully set out in the Judgment of Edwards J delivered on 29 May 2019.1 Suffice it to say that underpinning this application was a dispute as to who comprises the executive committee of the Tamaki Estuary Protection Society Inc (TEPS). The applicants commenced judicial review proceedings alleging that the respondents had not been validly appointed to the executive committee.
[4] On 29 May 2019, Edwards J issued a Judgment in which she found there had been a “catalogue of deficiencies and irregularities in the procedure leading up to the AGM, and at the AGM itself…”.2 Accordingly, she made orders that Mr O’Meara and Mr Thompson’s purported appointment at the AGM was invalid.
[5] Edwards J also ordered a fresh meeting and elections to be held, chaired by an independent Chair. Ms Anderson QC, who had previously been appointed to that role, confirmed her willingness to again act as Chairperson in a memorandum dated 5 June 2019.
[6] Critically for the purposes of this application, Edwards J found that the respondents had refused to hand over TEPS’s records, including the Minute book, bank account details, and membership lists; these remain in the respondents’ possession and control.3 She made the following Order against the respondents:4
Within two working days of the receipt of this judgment, the respondents shall deliver all records, minute books, membership register, financial accounts and
1 Barfoot v O’Meara [2019] NZHC 1186.
2 At [39].
3 At [15] and [42].
4 At [43](d).
any and all other TEPS’s documents to Ms Muller to be held pending further order of the Court.
[7] This material is said to be essential for the holding of an Annual General Meeting which complies with the rules of TEPS.
Events subsequent to the judgment
[8]The Judgment of Edwards J was sent by email by the Court to all parties.5
[9] The Court Order was sealed on 29 May 2019 and served on the respondents by several methods. First, it was emailed by counsel to Mr Thompson and Mr O’Meara. It was also couriered to the physical address for service under cover of a letter dated 12 June 2019. The physical addresses for service appeared to be the residential addresses of both respondents.
[10] Ms Evans, one of the applicants, has sworn an affidavit in support of the contempt application in which she describes the various attempts made to obtain the TEPS documents from Mr O’Meara and Mr Thompson.
[11] No documents were delivered to Ms Muller within two working days of judgment as required. Emails were sent to the respondents by plaintiffs’ counsel, counsel assisting the Court and Ms Anderson QC:
(a)On 4 June 2019, Ms Muller emailed Mr O’Meara and Mr Thompson advising them the Court ordered date for delivery of the documents had passed, and asking when and how the documents would be provided to her;
(b)On 7 June 2019, Ms Muller again emailed Mr O’Meara and Mr Thompson, asking them to contact her urgently about arrangements for them to deliver the documents “as ordered by the Court”.
5 I note that the email address for Mr O’Meara to which the judgment was sent was
[email protected] whereas the email address he recorded on the most recent memorandum filed in Court, dated 21 February 2019 was [email protected]. The difference is the full stop between first and surnames.
Mr Pidgeon, counsel for the applicants, also emailed noting the delivery was almost a week late, and he was instructed “to take assertive legal action if delivery does not occur today”;
(c)On 7 June 2019, Mr Thompson replied to Ms Muller, proposing a meeting. His email spoke of “we” which I take to mean both Mr Thompson and Mr O’Meara. This is clear evidence that at least Mr Thompson was aware of the Court Order and likely that Mr O’Meara was also aware. He did not mention the documents or advise when Ms Muller could expect delivery. Ms Muller asked by email what the purpose of the meeting would be, and whether it related to the delivery of documents. This email did not elicit a response from either Mr Thompson or Mr O’Meara;
(d)On 11 June, Ms Anderson QC emailed Ms Muller and Mr Thompson asking for an update on delivery of the documents. She copied the email to Mr O’Meara. Ms Muller advised she had not heard from either Mr Thompson or Mr O’Meara. Ms Anderson emailed Mr Thompson and Mr O’Meara asking them to deliver the records to Ms Muller “as ordered by the Court”.
[12] On 14 June 2019 some documents were delivered to Ms Muller’s chambers although it is not known by whom. The documents delivered were:
(a)ASB monthly statements for TEPS 01 account from January 2015– March 2017, and June 2018;
(b)ASB monthly statement for TEPS 56 account for June 2018;
(c)A list of names (surname and honorific only) called “Membership 2016 –2017”;
(d)Fifty (50) membership/subscription forms (photocopied) as provided in discovery phase of the litigation;
(e)Ten (10) membership/subscription forms not previously provided; and
(f)A New Zealand Herald statement and invoice, previously provided in the discovery phase of the litigation.
[13] The applicants say these documents are incomplete. They base this view on their own experience of TEPS administration, and the experience of members who formerly held office on the Executive. For example, Ms Evans says the TEPS membership register records on an Excel spreadsheet all contact details and subscription histories of members, not just names. She also notes that the membership list, 50 of the membership/subscription forms, and the Herald information, had already been provided in discovery.
[14] The applicants say that the following items and documents should have been handed over:–
· Minute book(s)
· Memberships register (Excel spreadsheet showing membership contact details and subscription records back to 1998)
· Membership applications/subscription renewals (including online membership applications)
· Laptop Computer
· Bank statements
· Deposit books(s)
· Invoices
· Cashbook(s)
· Receipts for expenditure
· Receipts for received payments (e.g. subscriptions, donations)
· Chequebooks and chequebook stubs
· General ledgers (Excel spreadsheets)
· Lease documents (land lease for clubrooms)
· Property documents (i.e. for Clubrooms)
· Financial statements/Annual reports
· Correspondence
· Administrative documents (e.g. Insurance; Charities Services; Companies office; P.O Box, Facebook, Website)
· Archival documents including minimum 7 years of Treasurer’s records
· Copies ASB Bank signed authorised signatory forms
· Charities office officer certificates
· Any contracts; employment records
· Grant reporting material
· Copies of submissions made on behalf of TEPS
· Contacts list
· Newsletters
· Rules and rule changes
[15] In addition, the applicants say that the respondents have or ought to have in their possession the TEPS Post Office Box key, clubroom keys, all the educational and promotional material for TEPS, and the common seal. With the exception of the educational and promotional material, these items do not neatly fall within the terms of the Order to deliver up documents.
[16] On 3 July 2019, Ms Anderson QC wrote further to the respondents noting the Order required all documents to be delivered, and requesting the full records. She referred in particular to the full membership list and the financial records.
Service and notice of this hearing
[17] On 27 June 2019, the application now before the Court was filed. It was served by email on the respondents. By Minute dated 4 July 2019, Woolford J directed that it be personally served on the respondents, along with a copy of his Minute which indicated that the application would be listed on the Duty Judge List for mention in Court on 11 July 2019.
[18] An affidavit from Mr Ward, a process server, sworn 10 July 2019, confirms that he attempted to serve Mr Thompson at his residential address. No one answered the front door, so he affixed the addressed envelope to the door. Mr Ward then drove to the residential address for service of Mr O’Meara. Finding a tall fence and locked gate, he affixed the documents in an addressed envelope to the front gate.
[19]The documents left at the address for service in this way were:
(a)Application dated 27 June 2019, memorandum of counsel dated 27 June 2019 and affidavit in support of Ms Evans made on 26 June 2019;
(b)Judgment of Edwards J dated 29 May 2019;
(c)Minute of Woolford J dated 4 July 2019;
(d)Notice of mention on the Duty Judge Court list for 11 July 2019; and
(e)Sealed Order.
[20] In a further affidavit of service sworn 16 August 2019, Mr Ward deposes that he personally served Mr Thompson on 15 August 2019 at his residential address. He was served with two Minutes from the Court making timetabling directions for the contempt application and advising of the date of hearing. Mr Ward confirms that Mr Thompson acknowledged his identity when served.
[21] Mr Ward further deposes that he affixed the same documents to Mr O’Meara’s front gate at his residence and telephoned Mr O’Meara. On reaching a voicemail message, Mr Ward then sent him a text message stating that a letter had been left at his front gate in a clear ziplock plastic bag.
[22] On 20 August 2019, Hinton J made an Order deeming that Mr O’Meara had been personally served with the application for declaration holding him in contempt of Court.
[23] I am therefore satisfied by the evidence presented to me that the respondents had full notice of the application for orders for contempt, the timetabling directions and the hearing date. Their failure to explain themselves, engage in the proceedings and non-appearance says much about their bona fides in respect of this dispute.
Applicants’ submissions
[24] The terms of the Order do not stipulate that the respondents were to deliver up the documents only in their possession. This is unsurprising in context. By dint of their respective roles and responsibilities, both Mr Thompson and Mr O’Meara had control over TEPS documents held by anyone else. I accept Mr Pidgeon’s submission that the Order logically encompasses TEPS documents in their possession, control and power.
[25] The applicants say there are many types of documents which Mr Thompson and Mr O’Meara have failed to deliver up and that there is ample evidence that such documents exist. The question is whether there is sufficient evidence that the
respondents, or either of them, were in possession or in control of any of these documents at the time of the making of the Orders. A previous treasurer of TEPS, Mr Worth, deposed in his affidavit what materials he had held as treasurer until 2016 and annexes to his affidavit emails sent to him by the replacement treasurer who confirms that all TEPS materials in her possession had been uplifted by Mr O’Meara.
[26] An affidavit from Ms Rawlings, secretary of TEPS until November 2017, deposes that following her resignation she handed to Mr O’Meara a box of TEPS records and a USB stick.
[27] Edwards J found that the Minute Book, bank account details and membership lists remain in the respondents’ possession and control.6
[28] Mr Pidgeon, for the applicants, acknowledges that there is a high burden of proof before any finding of contempt may be made. Nonetheless, he submits that the Court can be satisfied that Mr Thompson and Mr O’Meara have wilfully breached the Order.
[29] Mr Pidgeon emphasises that until the documents have been delivered in full to Ms Muller’s chambers, Ms Anderson QC cannot fulfil her duties and convene a fresh meeting. Thus, their non-compliance with this Order affects all directions Edwards J made and prevents the applicants from obtaining the benefit of the judgment in their favour.
[30] Mr Pidgeon submits that it may be appropriate to have a separate penalty hearing depending on the outcome on liability; although the applicants’ preference is to have both liability and penalty determined at this stage. Mr Pidgeon initially submitted that a fine would be an appropriate penalty. His position, however, shifted at the hearing. He submitted that it is known that the respondents are impecunious, so a fine would not have a coercive effect. He emphasised that the applicants are not motivated to punish but rather to coerce compliance with the Court Order. Imprisonment is not sought by the applicants although this is an option in the contempt jurisdiction.
6 Barfoot v O’Meara, at [15] and [42].
Contempt of Court
[31] Mr Pidgeon referred to s 165 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. This creates a statutory contempt where any person “wilfully and without lawful excuse disobeys any order or direction of the court in the course of the hearing of any proceedings.”7
[32] While Mr Thompson and Mr O’Meara are said to have disobeyed an order of the court, it was not an order in the course of a hearing.8 Their conduct is therefore to be assessed under the residual inherent jurisdiction of the Court preserved by s 165(3).
[33] There are two types of contempt. The first is civil in nature and involves disobedience of court orders. The Court intervenes for the benefit of the party in whose favour the order was made. The second is criminal in nature and concerns acts which threaten the administration of justice. While this distinction has been eroded in some respects, it remains relevant to determine appeal rights.9
[34] Disobedience of a Court Order, the type of contempt alleged here, constitutes a civil contempt although, for reasons which I will turn to, there is a prospect that criminal contempt may also be engaged.10
Requirements of civil contempt
[35] There are three requirements of civil contempt. Each must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:11
(a)The existence of an order unambiguous in its terms and binding on the respondent, which the respondent is aware of;
(b)The respondent is in breach of the order; and
7 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 165(1)(c).
8 Simon France (ed) Adams on Criminal Law – Criminal Procedure (online looseleaf ed, Thomson Reuters) at [TP26.03(4)].
9 Young v Zhang [2017] NZCA 622 at [43].
10 At [41].
11 Solicitor-General v Krieger [2014] NZHC 172 at [24]-[26]; Blomfield v The Owner and/or Administrator of [2018] NZHC 2724 at [4].
(c)The respondent’s conduct was deliberate “in the sense that he or she knew the obligation cast by the order of the Court, but nonetheless intentionally breached that obligation.”12
[36] A finding of contempt has serious consequences so natural justice requirements are engaged. However, it is also clear that a defendant’s presence is not a mandatory requirement when making a finding of contempt, provided they have been properly served; in short, provided the respondent is aware of the Order. I add to this that it is inherent in the natural justice requirements that the respondents are also properly aware of the application to hold them in contempt for non-compliance.
[37] As Potter J held in Ferrier Hodgson v Siemer, general principles relating to non-appearance apply.13 She considered that: 14
Where no notice of opposition has been filed and served, a party served with the application is not entitled to be heard. Subject to proof of service of the interlocutory application, the Court will invariably hear it. This is particularly so when the party's non-appearance is deliberate”.
[38] In the circumstances before me, I have concluded that the non-appearance by the respondents is deliberate.
Analysis
[39] I am satisfied that the Order made by Edwards J is clear and unambiguous. I am also satisfied to the required standard that Mr Thompson and Mr O’Meara are both aware of the Order. I rely on the multiple notification emails sent to the email address of service, and the physical service attested to by Mr Ward. In one instance, an email was responded to by Mr Thompson. In addition, there was partial compliance by either or both by delivery of a small number of documents to Ms Muller on 14 June 2019.
12 Solicitor-General v Krieger [2014] NZHC 172 at [26].
13 Ferrier Hodgson v Siemer HC Auckland CIV-2005-404-1808, 9 July 2007, (citations omitted).
14 At [10].
[40] I am also satisfied that the respondents have been adequately notified of this application for contempt. In this regard, I rely on the evidence of the process server Mr Ward and the Order of Hinton J deeming personal service on Mr O’Meara.
[41] There is satisfactory evidence that the documents delivered to Ms Muller are but a small subset of TEPS’ documents which are or have been in existence. It is reasonable to expect that Mr O’Meara as former Chairman of TEPS, and Mr Thompson as former Treasurer, either possessed all TEPS documents or had them within their control at some time before the making of the Order.15 Any dispossession by them after 29 May 2019 would amount to a breach of the Order unless the documents were delivered to Ms Muller. This did not happen.
[42] Mr O’Meara was the last known person to have many of the documents according to evidence of former Committee members, and there is evidence that Mr O’Meara and Mr Thompson were acting at all relevant times in concert. However, it is not legitimate in the contempt jurisdiction to presume that circumstances proved to exist at a certain date continue to exist in the absence of evidence to the contrary, beyond a reasonable date.16
[43]To overcome this issue, Mr Pidgeon points to the following:
(a)Mr Thompson’s tweet of an image of a folder of TEPS records titled “Records of the Tamaki Estuary Protection Society Volume Two - Minutes, Newsletters, Financial Statements”. The date of the tweet is unclear to me although the screenshot of the tweet records the ‘date of access’ as 04/10/18 at 22.18. The twitter handle is @DennyPaoa. This second folder was not one of the documents delivered to Ms Muller;
(b)An affidavit of documents made by Mr Thompson in the substantive judicial review proceeding lists “Minute Book of the Society”. This was not one of the documents delivered to Ms Muller;
15 The effect of the Judgment of Edwards J on 29 May 2019 was that Mr O’Meara was no longer Chairman and Mr Thompson was no longer Treasurer.
16 In re Bramblevale Ltd [1970] 1 Ch 128.
(c)In a memorandum to the Court dated 16 August 2018, Ms Anderson QC recorded that Mr Thompson has said he hopes that documents underlying the transactions recorded in the banks statements will be provided to her the following Wednesday, but he has not committed to this date. These were not provided to Ms Muller;
(d)The same memorandum records that Mr O’Meara and Mr Thompson required Ms Anderson QC to obtain a Court order directing them to provide the membership register to her on the basis that they owe privacy obligations to members. It is not clear to me that this register is the membership document delivered to Ms Muller;
(e)Ms Evans was present at a meeting in which Mr Thompson confirmed that he had the TEPS membership list or register spreadsheet on his laptop. This has not been provided in electronic form;
(f)Mr Thompson’s memorandum to the Court dated 21 February 2019 confirmed that he had in his possession ASB Bank statements (from December 2017 onwards), Minute Book and membership list, a receipt book and cheque book. This memorandum was filed in response to a direction by Woolford J requiring him to list which of a small number of stipulated documents were in his possession. As such, Mr Thompson’s memorandum does not bear on the full extent of documents in his possession. While ASB bank statements were delivered to Ms Muller, they were for a different period of time;
(g)The first respondent, Mr O’Meara, also filed a memorandum in Court dated 21 February 2019 in which he stated that he did not hold any of the documents named in the Minute of Woolford J, “... as they are held by Mr Thompson”. The same point can be made. The Minute of Woolford J only related to a small number of stipulated documents and does not bear on the question of what other documents were held by Mr O’Meara.
(h)A consent memorandum of the parties dated 6 August 2018, recorded the parties’ agreement not only to the appointment of Ms Jane Anderson QC as the neutral Chairperson, but also recorded that her brief was to ensure all necessary Society records are made available to facilitate the effective functioning of the AGM. This includes financial records to enable the audited accounts to be prepared and presented to the AGM and to ensure proper notice and agenda for the AGM are provided to members;
(i)A memorandum of the independent Chairperson dated 16 August 2018, recorded that Mr O’Meara and Mr Thompson required Ms Anderson to obtain an order from the Court before they would provide her with the members’ register. The stated basis was purportedly privacy obligations to members not to disclose their names and addresses. In the same memorandum, the independent Chairperson records that Mr O’Meara and Mr Thompson refused to hand over membership applications in the absence of a Court order. Finally, that memorandum records Mr Thompson’s advice to the independent chairperson that documents underlying transactions in the bank statements will be provided to her the following week, albeit there was no commitment to that date.
(j)A cheque signed on behalf of TEPS by Mr O’Meara and Mr Thompson is dated 6 December 2017. This purports to be a refund to people attempting to subscribe to be members but who had been rejected by Mr O’Meara. No cheque book was provided to Ms Muller.
[44] There are other factors pointing to control of documents by Messrs Thompson and O’Meara. It is apparent that they essentially had control of TEPS for a two-year period before the Judgment of Edwards J, at which time their role formally ceased. There is evidence that a laptop belonging to TEPS containing financial records and other documents was handed over to Mr O’Meara sometime in 2017.
[45] Mr O’Meara signed documents filed in Court as Chairman of TEPS. As Chairman, he owed duties and obligations to the membership and to the organisation itself to ensure that appropriate records were retained, as did Mr Thompson as Secretary and Treasurer. These obligations include those under s 22 of the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 (the Act) requiring every society to keep a register of its members containing the names and addresses of the members, and the dates when they became members. There are further obligations under s 23 of the Act to deliver annual financial statements to the Registrar containing particulars such as the income and expenditure of the society during the last financial year.
[46] In my view, the final requirement for contempt is also made out; the respondents “knew the obligation cast by the order of the Court, but nonetheless intentionally breached that obligation.”17 In the absence of explanation by the respondents despite multiple opportunities, I consider the applicants’ submission that the default is deliberate and wilful is made out to the required standard.
[47] All these factors, combined with the failure to engage with this application, satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents are in breach of the Order made by Edwards J, and that such breach is intentional and consistent with an obstructionist attitude throughout the substantive litigation. I note that the respondents received warnings from the Court in relation to earlier non-compliance with Court orders in these proceedings.18
[48] It is more difficult to apportion responsibility between the two respondents – it is unclear exactly which respondent currently has which documents and who is primarily responsible for not delivering them. In my judgment, this does not impede my finding of contempt for two reasons. First, I consider that both respondents could legitimately obtain the documents if held by a third party or each other in view of their prior Committee roles and the Court Order. Both respondents were best placed to know exactly where and who retained the documents. In any event, if it were the case that a third party was obstructing their ability to comply, both have had the opportunity to explain this to the Court. Secondly, to the extent that each might rely on the other’s
17 Solicitor-General v Krieger [2014] NZHC 172 at [26].
18 Minute of Fitzgerald J dated 14 February 2019.
possession of the documents to absolve themselves, it is also possible to characterise their conduct as aiding or abetting the other’s breach of the Court Order. This would amount to criminal contempt as an interference with the administration of justice.
[49] I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents are in contempt of Court. However, I am not yet satisfied as to the full extent of the non- compliance which depends in my view on precisely what documents were in the possession or under the control of Messrs Thompson and O’Meara as at 29 May 2019. I have concluded that it is more than likely that all TEPS documents were at least within their control, but this is not sufficient to meet the standard in this jurisdiction.
Penalty
[50] Mr Pidgeon has urged me to impose a sentence of community service or similar. He submits that penalties for failure to comply with court orders are assessed through the application of similar sentencing methodologies to sentencing criminal offenders and relies on Burmester v Burmester (No 2).19 In that case Katz J committed the contemnor to prison for seven (7) days after careful consideration of the principles of deterrence, the objective seriousness of the relevant conduct, the personal culpability of the contemnor and circumstances of the breach. It is here that the lack of precision about the full extent of non-compliance becomes relevant.
[51] I am conscious of the dual purpose of the law of contempt. The applicants are understandably focused on compelling compliance so that TEPS can get on with fulfilling its stated charitable purpose and its legal obligations. There is an underlying public interest in ensuring that the administration of justice is maintained which is also an important factor. The principles of the law of contempt have the objective of preserving the authority of the Court. It is conceivable that imprisonment for a period of no more than three (3) months is indeed the appropriate sentence in respect of this contempt.20 I am not, however, prepared to determine that question without providing the respondents a last opportunity to purge their contempt. They can do so by either complying with the Order to deliver up all TEPS documents in their possession, power
19 [2018] NZHC 2728.
20 Siemer v Solicitor-General [2010] NZSC 54, [2010] 3 NZLR 767.
or control; or providing an affidavit explaining where the documents listed in [14] above currently are, when they were last in their possession and what happened to them.
[52] For these reasons, I am satisfied that the appropriate course here is to issue an arrest order against Mr Thompson and Mr O’Meara but that this order should lie in Court until the next hearing date and only be executed if the respondents fail to attend Court on that date.
Conclusion
[53] I hold the respondents, Mr Thompson and Mr O’Meara in contempt of Court for deliberately failing to comply with the Order made by Edwards J on 29 May 2019.
[54]A further penalty hearing will be held at 10.00 am on Friday 18 October 2019.
[55] I direct that a warrant issue for the arrest of Messrs Thompson and O’Meara. The warrant is to lie in Court until 10.00 am on Friday 18 October 2019. If they purge their contempt before that time by delivering all TEPS documents to Ms Muller and providing the affidavit described in [51] above or attend Court voluntarily on the stipulated day of hearing, the arrest warrant will be revoked. If neither of those events occur, the warrant is to be executed and Mr Thompson and Mr O’Meara are to be brought to Court at the first available opportunity to face the consequences.
[56] I direct that this Judgment and the Sealed Orders made are to be served personally on the respondents, along with an explanatory memorandum (and a further copy of the Orders made by Edwards J) which sets out in plain English that:
(a)A warrant has been issued for arrest but is to lie in Court;
(b)The warrant will not be acted on and will be revoked if you comply with the Order made by Edwards J before 10.00 am, 18 October 2019;
(c)If you do not comply with the Order made by Edwards J before that date and do not attend Court at 10.00 am on 18 October 2019, the
warrant will be executed and you will be arrested and brought before this Court.
[57] I make an order for costs against the first and second respondents. I invite the applicants to file a memorandum quantifying the costs sought.
.........................................
Walker J
6
1