Pisano v Dandris (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1220

Pisano v Dandris (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1220

The $3,895 credit card payment was not pursued and was not shown to fall outside ordinary living expenses. Of the $250,000 transfer made after Ms Dandris knew of the freezing order, $125,000 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to be contempt because it could be characterised as repayment of money mistakenly transferred from her husband's account, which did not deplete her beneficial assets. The remaining $125,000 was not authorised by the freezing order because it was a lump sum for anticipated legal and living expenses, not expenses incurred from time to time; it diminished her assets by increasing the debt secured over her Bondi property, and she did not have unencumbered assets of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings Alleging Breach of Freezing Orders / Principal Judgment on Proof of Contempt, With Penalty to Be Addressed Later
Outcome
The first defendant was found guilty of contempt in respect of the 14 November 2013 payment, but only as to $125,000; the allegation concerning the $3,895 credit card payment was withdrawn.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'ordinary Living Expenses' 'reasonable Legal Expenses' 'beneficial Ownership' 'constructive or Resulting Trust' 'unencumbered Assets Threshold']
['contempt' 'equity' 'technology and Construction List'] ['freezing Orders' 'ordinary Living Expenses' 'reasonable Legal Expenses' 'beneficial Ownership' 'constructive or Resulting Trust' 'unencumbered Assets Threshold']

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 Alleging Breach of Freezing Orders / Principal Judgment on Proof of Contempt, With Penalty to Be Addressed Later

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a payment of $3,895 to ANZ Cards in discharge of a credit card obligation was outside the exception for ordinary living expenses in the freezing order.' 'Whether part of the $250,000 transfer to Patrick Williams was a repayment of money mistakenly transferred from his account, so that beneficial ownership never passed to Ms Dandris.' 'Whether the remaining $125,000 of the $250,000 transfer was permitted as a lump sum for anticipated legal expenses and ordinary living expenses.' "Whether the transfer depleted or diminished Ms Dandris' assets in breach of order 4(a) of the freezing order." 'Whether Ms Dandris retained unencumbered assets of at least $1 million so that order 4(b) prevented breach of the freezing order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The $3,895 credit card payment was not pursued and was not shown to fall outside ordinary living expenses. Of the $250,000 transfer made after Ms Dandris knew of the freezing order, $125,000 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to be contempt because it could be characterised as repayment of money mistakenly transferred from her husband's account, which did not deplete her beneficial assets. The remaining $125,000 was not authorised by the freezing order because it was a lump sum for anticipated legal and living expenses, not expenses incurred from time to time; it diminished her assets by increasing the debt secured over her Bondi property, and she did not have unencumbered assets of...

Court Disposition

The first defendant was found guilty of contempt in respect of the 14 November 2013 payment, but only as to $125,000; the allegation concerning the $3,895 credit card payment was withdrawn.

Orders

  • ['The charge of contempt is proved in respect of the payment made on 14 November 2013, only in respect of the sum of $125,000 being part of that payment.' 'The parties are to have an opportunity to reflect on the reasons before addressing what, if any, penalty should be imposed and, if thought desirable, to put...