Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd v Allyma Express Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1776

Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd v Allyma Express Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1776

Wilful failure to comply with an order for the delivery up of vehicles, where the contemnor had control or possession of the vehicles and did not deliver them up without lawful excuse, constitutes contempt of court; mere non-compliance is insufficient unless proved to be wilful beyond reasonable doubt.

Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd; Ninth Defendant/respondent: Harold James Price; Tenth Defendant/respondent: Scott James Price; Eleventh Defendant/respondent: Megan Louise Dreyer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Contempt / Determination of Contempt (liability Only; Penalty Deferred)
Outcome
Partial: Contempt proven in part, dismissed in part; penalty reserved.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Court Orders, Wilful Disobedience, Specific Delivery of Chattels
Equity Commercial Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Enforcement of Court Orders Wilful Disobedience Specific Delivery of Chattels

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd

Plaintiff/applicant

Harold James Price

Ninth Defendant/respondent

Scott James Price

Tenth Defendant/respondent

Megan Louise Dreyer

Eleventh Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Contempt / Determination of Contempt (liability Only; Penalty Deferred)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contempt respondents wilfully failed to comply with court orders to deliver up vehicles to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether mere non-compliance with a delivery up order is sufficient to constitute contempt or whether wilfulness is required
  3. 3 Whether impossibility of compliance is a defence to contempt

Ratio Decidendi

Wilful failure to comply with an order for the delivery up of vehicles, where the contemnor had control or possession of the vehicles and did not deliver them up without lawful excuse, constitutes contempt of court; mere non-compliance is insufficient unless proved to be wilful beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Partial: Contempt proven in part, dismissed in part; penalty reserved.

Orders

  • The ninth defendant, Harold James Price, is guilty of contempt of court by wilfully failing to deliver up vehicles 8, 10, 15, 16, 22 and 33 in accordance with the Court's order of 27 July 2018.
  • Otherwise, the charges against the ninth defendant are dismissed.