Pisano v Dandris [2015] NSWSC 1219

Respondent has no case to answer in respect of all but two transactions because retrospective amendment of order cannot found contempt for conduct occurring when no order was in force. The onus for exception lies on the defendant, but first and last transactions remain in issue.

Parties: First Plaintiff: Bruno Pisano; Second Plaintiff: Sia Pisano; First Defendant: Georgia Dandris; Second Defendant: Patrick Francis Williams
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 21 August 2015
Procedural Posture: Contempt Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Application Under R 29.10 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)
Outcome: Respondent has no case to answer except in relation to two transactions.
Legal Topics: Contempt of Court, Freezing Orders, Retrospective Amendment of Orders, Standard of Proof, Civil Vs Criminal Contempt

Equity Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Retrospective Amendment of Orders Standard of Proof Civil Vs Criminal Contempt

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Bruno Pisano

First Plaintiff

Sia Pisano

Second Plaintiff

Georgia Dandris

First Defendant

Patrick Francis Williams

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Application Under R 29.10 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)

Legal Issues

1 Whether a judgment could be supported based on the evidence given regarding contempt
2 Whether the contempt is properly classified as criminal or civil
3 Whether the standard of proof is criminal or civil

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Respondent has no case to answer except in relation to two transactions.

Orders

No case to answer for respondent except as to payments of 14 November 2013 and 31 July 2014.