Baker v Paul (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1174

Baker v Paul (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1174

The contempt charges failed because Mr Paul honestly held, and it was reasonably open to him to hold, the mistaken belief that the exceptions in the 1 September 2010 freezing order applied to the 16 September 2010 order concerning the St George account; this meant the necessary knowledge or mens rea for contempt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Because Mr Paul was the organ by which Tony Paul Media operated, the contempt charge against Tony Paul Media also failed. The second and third defendants' defence was struck out for want of due despatch, ACN Pty Ltd's cross-claim was dismissed for non-compliance with the security for costs order, and Mr Sanderson's subpoena compliance costs...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings Concerning Contempt, Strike Out of Pleadings and Subpoena Costs / Determination of Three Notices of Motion
Outcome
Contempt notice of motion and charges dismissed with costs; defence of the second and third defendants struck out; ACN Pty Ltd's cross-claim dismissed with costs; subpoena costs ordered in favour of Clifford John Sanderson.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'injunctions' 'committal for Contempt' 'mens Rea for Contempt' 'strike Out for Want of Due Despatch' 'security for Costs' 'subpoena Compliance Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'contempt of Court' 'equity'] ['freezing Orders' 'injunctions' 'committal for Contempt' 'mens Rea for Contempt' 'strike Out for Want of Due Despatch' 'security for Costs' 'subpoena Compliance 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

Procedural and Other Rulings Concerning Contempt, Strike Out of Pleadings and Subpoena Costs / Determination of Three Notices of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Anthony Christopher Paul committed contempt by causing Tony Paul Media Pty Ltd to breach the order made by Rein J on 16 September 2010.' 'Whether Tony Paul Media Pty Ltd committed contempt by breaching the order made by Rein J on 16 September 2010.' 'Whether the contempt charges were defective in form.' 'Whether Mr Paul honestly and reasonably held a mistaken belief that the exceptions in the freezing order of 1 September 2010 applied to the injunction concerning the St George account.' 'Whether the defence of the second and third defendants should be struck out for want of due despatch.' 'Whether the cross-claim filed by ACN Pty Ltd should be dismissed for non-compliance with an order for security for costs.' "Whether Clifford John Sanderson's claimed costs of complying with the subpoena were reasonable."]

Ratio Decidendi

The contempt charges failed because Mr Paul honestly held, and it was reasonably open to him to hold, the mistaken belief that the exceptions in the 1 September 2010 freezing order applied to the 16 September 2010 order concerning the St George account; this meant the necessary knowledge or mens rea for contempt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Because Mr Paul was the organ by which Tony Paul Media operated, the contempt charge against Tony Paul Media also failed. The second and third defendants' defence was struck out for want of due despatch, ACN Pty Ltd's cross-claim was dismissed for non-compliance with the security for costs order, and Mr Sanderson's subpoena compliance costs...

Court Disposition

Contempt notice of motion and charges dismissed with costs; defence of the second and third defendants struck out; ACN Pty Ltd's cross-claim dismissed with costs; subpoena costs ordered in favour of Clifford John Sanderson.

Orders

  • ['The charge of contempt of court against Anthony Christopher Paul is dismissed.' 'The charge of contempt of court against Tony Paul Media Pty Ltd is dismissed.' 'The notice of motion for contempt is dismissed with costs.' 'The defence filed on behalf of the second and third defendants on 14 April 2011 is struck out...