Australian Securities & Investments Commission v R Wynhoven & Associates Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1418

Australian Securities & Investments Commission v R Wynhoven & Associates Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1418

The third defendant wilfully breached paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Goldberg J's orders by receiving and parting with $25,000 and $11,000 from Mr Henry in circumstances involving a financial product. Although he did not understand that his conduct breached the orders and the breaches were not contumacious, he had no reasonable basis for his narrow understanding and had not sought advice, so his conduct was reckless rather than merely technical. Because the underlying orders had been spent, his financial circumstances were limited, and he admitted contempt, a one-off fine of $7,000 payable within three months and an order for the plaintiff's costs were appropriate. Compensation to Mr Henry...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings Arising From Alleged Breach of Interlocutory Orders in Proceedings Concerning an Investment Business / Penalty After the Third Defendant Consented to Orders That He Was Guilty of Contempt, With Final Orders in the Underlying Proceedings Already Made by Consent
Outcome
The third defendant was found guilty of wilful contempt by consent, fined $7,000, ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the contempt motion, and no compensation order was made in favour of Mr Henry.
Legal Topics
['civil Contempt' 'breach of Interlocutory Injunctions' 'financial Products' 'investment Schemes' 'penalty for Contempt' 'costs']
['contempt of Court' 'corporations Law' 'financial Services Regulation'] ['civil Contempt' 'breach of Interlocutory Injunctions' 'financial Products' 'investment Schemes' 'penalty for Contempt' 'costs']

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 Proceedings Arising From Alleged Breach of Interlocutory Orders in Proceedings Concerning an Investment Business / Penalty After the Third Defendant Consented to Orders That He Was Guilty of Contempt, With Final Orders in the Underlying Proceedings Already Made by Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the third defendant's admitted breaches of orders made by Goldberg J amounted to civil contempt of the Court." "What penalty was appropriate for the third defendant's wilful but not contumacious contempt." 'Whether compensation should be ordered in favour of Gary Raymond Henry in the contempt proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The third defendant wilfully breached paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Goldberg J's orders by receiving and parting with $25,000 and $11,000 from Mr Henry in circumstances involving a financial product. Although he did not understand that his conduct breached the orders and the breaches were not contumacious, he had no reasonable basis for his narrow understanding and had not sought advice, so his conduct was reckless rather than merely technical. Because the underlying orders had been spent, his financial circumstances were limited, and he admitted contempt, a one-off fine of $7,000 payable within three months and an order for the plaintiff's costs were appropriate. Compensation to Mr Henry...

Court Disposition

The third defendant was found guilty of wilful contempt by consent, fined $7,000, ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the contempt motion, and no compensation order was made in favour of Mr Henry.

Orders

  • ['By consent, the third defendant is guilty of contempt of Court by breaching paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of the orders made by Justice Goldberg on 10 February 2004, and such contempts were wilful.' 'The third defendant is to pay to the Melbourne registry of the Court by way of a fine for such contempt the sum of...