NCR Australia v Credit Connection [2005] NSWSC 1118

NCR Australia v Credit Connection [2005] NSWSC 1118

Although the contempts were serious, repeated and deprived the plaintiff of funds against which it could execute its judgment, imprisonment was not available because the second defendant had not been served with an endorsed order and the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he knew the precise terms or substance of all variations or that imprisonment was a possible consequence. The Court declined to dispense with service. A fine was inappropriate due to bankruptcy and lack of means, and other non-custodial options were inadequate. A community service order was available and appropriate; applying totality and a 10 percent discount for the late guilty plea produced an...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings for Breach of Mareva Orders / Sentencing After the Second Defendant Pleaded Guilty to Ten Charges of Contempt
Outcome
The second defendant was sentenced to 288 hours of community service and ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['breach of Mareva Order' 'attachment and Sequestration' 'standard of Proof for Sentencing Facts' 'availability of Imprisonment for Civil Contempt' 'community Service Orders' 'discount for Plea of Guilty' 'multiple Contempts and Totality Principle' 'costs on Indemnity Basis']
['civil Procedure' 'contempt of Court' 'evidence' 'criminal Law Sentencing'] ['breach of Mareva Order' 'attachment and Sequestration' 'standard of Proof for Sentencing Facts' 'availability of Imprisonment for Civil Contempt' 'community Service Orders' 'discount for Plea of Guilty' 'multiple Contempts and Totality Principle' 'costs on Indemnity Basis']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Proceedings for Breach of Mareva Orders / Sentencing After the Second Defendant Pleaded Guilty to Ten Charges of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What punishment should be ordered for ten separate charges of contempt arising from breaches of Mareva orders.' 'Whether imprisonment was available where the second defendant had not been personally served with a sealed order endorsed with a warning that imprisonment was a possible consequence of breach.' 'Whether the Court should exercise discretion under Part 42 rule 8(6) or Part 42 rule 8(7) Supreme Court Rules 1970 despite non-service of an endorsed order.' 'Whether a community service order could be imposed even though imprisonment was not available in the particular circumstances of the offender.' 'What aggravating and mitigating factors, including the plea of guilty, should affect sentence for multiple contempts.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the contempts were serious, repeated and deprived the plaintiff of funds against which it could execute its judgment, imprisonment was not available because the second defendant had not been served with an endorsed order and the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he knew the precise terms or substance of all variations or that imprisonment was a possible consequence. The Court declined to dispense with service. A fine was inappropriate due to bankruptcy and lack of means, and other non-custodial options were inadequate. A community service order was available and appropriate; applying totality and a 10 percent discount for the late guilty plea produced an...

Court Disposition

The second defendant was sentenced to 288 hours of community service and ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['I sentence the second defendant to perform 288 hours of community service.' 'I direct the second defendant to report to the NSW Probation and Parole Service at Hurstville within seven (7) days of the making of these orders.' 'The second defendant is to pay the costs of the plaintiff of this Notice of Motion on an...