Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 10) [2007] FCA 1814

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 10) [2007] FCA 1814

Mr Siminton's eight contempts were wilful, contumacious and criminal contempts forming part of a deliberate scheme to breach Gray J's orders while masking his conduct. Given his prior contempt findings concerning substantially similar orders and the same funds, his absence of apology or purging of contempt, and the need for deterrence and vindication of the Court's authority, no penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate. Because Mr Siminton knew before the relevant conduct that he had to obey Gray J's orders and knew the potential consequences of disobedience, dispensation under Order 37 r 2(6) was granted for contempts before service of the endorsed order. Each contempt warranted...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceeding / Penalty Hearing After Findings of Contempt
Outcome
Respondent declared guilty of contempt on eight charges and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 12 months; solicitor-client costs ordered for APRA; warrant to lie on the Court file until further order with interim reporting and travel restrictions pending any appeal or further order.
Legal Topics
['penalty for Contempt' 'wilful Disobedience of Court Orders' 'criminal Contempt' 'imprisonment for Contempt' 'costs on a Solicitor Client Basis' 'dispensation From Endorsed Order Requirement']
['contempt of Court' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['penalty for Contempt' 'wilful Disobedience of Court Orders' 'criminal Contempt' 'imprisonment for Contempt' 'costs on a Solicitor Client Basis' 'dispensation From Endorsed Order Requirement']

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 Proceeding / Penalty Hearing After Findings of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalty should be imposed for eight contempts constituted by contraventions of Gray J's order restraining dealings with specified moneys." 'Whether the contempts were sufficiently serious, wilful and contumacious to warrant imprisonment.' 'Whether a distinction should be drawn between contempts occurring before and after service of an order endorsed under Order 37 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether APRA should receive costs on a solicitor-client basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Siminton's eight contempts were wilful, contumacious and criminal contempts forming part of a deliberate scheme to breach Gray J's orders while masking his conduct. Given his prior contempt findings concerning substantially similar orders and the same funds, his absence of apology or purging of contempt, and the need for deterrence and vindication of the Court's authority, no penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate. Because Mr Siminton knew before the relevant conduct that he had to obey Gray J's orders and knew the potential consequences of disobedience, dispensation under Order 37 r 2(6) was granted for contempts before service of the endorsed order. Each contempt warranted...

Court Disposition

Respondent declared guilty of contempt on eight charges and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 12 months; solicitor-client costs ordered for APRA; warrant to lie on the Court file until further order with interim reporting and travel restrictions pending any appeal or further order.

Orders

  • ['It be declared that the respondent is guilty of contempt by reason of the matters set out in Charges 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.9 and 1.11 of the statement of charge dated 14 December 2006.' 'No findings should be made in relation to the matters set out in Charges 1.6, 1.8, 1.10 and 1.12 of the statement of...