Australian Securities Commission v. Macleod, R.J. & Ors [1994] FCA 900

Australian Securities Commission v. Macleod, R.J. & Ors [1994] FCA 900

The court refused to hear the first respondent's application for a stay pending appeal because he was in deliberate and ongoing contempt of the court's orders, had not purged his contempt, and the seriousness and circumstances of his contempts warranted the exercise of discretion to refuse to entertain his application.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Securities Commission; First Respondent: Robert James Macleod; Second Respondent: Trainex Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 001506332; Third Respondent: Starlight Film Studios Ltd. A.C.N. 051750442; Fourth Respondent: Starlight Pictures Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 055168128; Fifth Respondent: Star Partners Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 055168155
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 1994
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Judgment/orders Pending Appeal / Post Final Judgment; Interlocutory Application for Stay
Outcome
Application for stay refused; costs ordered against first respondent.
Legal Topics
Effect of Contempt on Right to Be Heard, Discretion to Refuse Contemnor a Hearing, Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Corporate Law Effect of Contempt on Right to Be Heard Discretion to Refuse Contemnor a Hearing Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities Commission

Applicant

Robert James Macleod

First Respondent

Trainex Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 001506332

Second Respondent

Starlight Film Studios Ltd. A.C.N. 051750442

Third Respondent

Starlight Pictures Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 055168128

Fourth Respondent

Star Partners Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 055168155

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Judgment/orders Pending Appeal / Post Final Judgment; Interlocutory Application for Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person in contempt of court is entitled to be heard on an application for stay of orders pending appeal
  2. 2 Scope of court's discretion to hear a contemnor's application

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to hear the first respondent's application for a stay pending appeal because he was in deliberate and ongoing contempt of the court's orders, had not purged his contempt, and the seriousness and circumstances of his contempts warranted the exercise of discretion to refuse to entertain his application.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused; costs ordered against first respondent.

Orders

  • The court refuses to hear the application by the first respondent to stay the orders made on 17 November 1994 and 22 November 1994 until the first respondent has purged his contempt.
  • The first respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of the application of today and yesterday to be taxed, to be paid by the receivers out of the assets of the respondents.