Duncan-Strelec v Tate [2008] NSWSC 1145

Duncan-Strelec v Tate [2008] NSWSC 1145

The third defendant, having knowledge of the consent orders via its counsel and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, was bound by the order restraining it from mortgaging or charging the property without plaintiffs' consent. By mortgaging and charging the land after the share sale but without the required consent, it was in contempt of court regardless of any ambiguity or intent to disobey.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing on Alleged Contempt
Outcome
Plaintiffs entitled to a declaration that the third defendant was in contempt of court.
Legal Topics
['contempt of Court' 'disobedience of Court Orders' 'consent Orders' 'injunction' 'notice of Court Orders']
['equity' 'procedure'] ['contempt of Court' 'disobedience of Court Orders' 'consent Orders' 'injunction' 'notice of Court 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing on Alleged Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the third defendant was in contempt of court for breaching consent orders by mortgaging and charging land without the plaintiffs' written consent" "Whether knowledge of consent orders by company's officers can be attributed to the company for contempt" 'Whether lack of personal service of the order or the presence of ambiguity provides a defence to contempt']

Ratio Decidendi

The third defendant, having knowledge of the consent orders via its counsel and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, was bound by the order restraining it from mortgaging or charging the property without plaintiffs' consent. By mortgaging and charging the land after the share sale but without the required consent, it was in contempt of court regardless of any ambiguity or intent to disobey.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs entitled to a declaration that the third defendant was in contempt of court.

Orders

  • ["Declaration that the third defendant was in contempt of court for breaching consent orders by mortgaging and charging land without plaintiffs' written consent." 'Any question of penalty to be determined at a later date.' 'Matter stood over for mention on 2 December 2008.']