Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 3) [2017] FCA 1170

Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 3) [2017] FCA 1170

Given the absence of any explanation by or on behalf of Adam Kazal for his delay, his failure to acknowledge the Court's authority or to express contrition, and his ongoing contempt, the Court should not hear his applications or grant him a favourable exercise of discretion to file a defence out of time or set aside subpoenas. To do so would not be in the interests of justice.

Parties
First Applicant: Thunder Studios Inc (California); Second Applicant: Rodric Marc David; First Respondent: Charif Kazal; Second Respondent: Adam Kazal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings With Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Application for Leave to File a Defence Out of Time and to Set Aside Subpoenas
Outcome
interlocutory applications dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Leave to File Defence Out of Time, Discretion to Hear Party in Contempt, Particulars of Justification, Withdrawal of Admissions, Costs Orders
Contempt of Court Practice and Procedure Defamation Leave to File Defence Out of Time Discretion to Hear Party in Contempt Particulars of Justification Withdrawal of Admissions Costs Orders

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thunder Studios Inc (California)

First Applicant

Rodric Marc David

Second Applicant

Charif Kazal

First Respondent

Adam Kazal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Proceedings With Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Application for Leave to File a Defence Out of Time and to Set Aside Subpoenas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party in contempt of court should be heard in proceedings in relation to which the contempt exists.
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent should be granted leave under r 1.39 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 to file a defence out of time.
  3. 3 Whether an explanation for delay and withdrawal of admissions was provided.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the absence of any explanation by or on behalf of Adam Kazal for his delay, his failure to acknowledge the Court's authority or to express contrition, and his ongoing contempt, the Court should not hear his applications or grant him a favourable exercise of discretion to file a defence out of time or set aside subpoenas. To do so would not be in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

interlocutory applications dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The interlocutory applications filed by the second respondent on 16 June 2017 and 28 July 2017 be dismissed.
  • The second respondent pay the applicants' costs.