Thompson v White [2007] NSWSC 733

Thompson v White [2007] NSWSC 733

The order restraining the plaintiff from selling or disposing of any interest in the property was not ambiguous. A mortgage of the property that diminished the owner's interest by $120,000 was a disposition of an interest in the property for the purposes of that order. The Statement of Charges sufficiently alleged that the solicitor knew of the order and assisted the plaintiff to mortgage the property to pay his own costs, which if established would satisfy the mental element for non-party contempt, and the charges adequately specified the contempt. Any procedural objection based on the Supreme Court Act 1970 did not deprive the Court of the ability to deal with the matter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Notice of Motion to Strike Out Contempt Charge
Outcome
Notice of motion to have contempt charge struck out dismissed.
Legal Topics
['disobedience of Injunction' 'construction of Court Orders' 'torrens System Mortgage' 'disposition of Interest in Property' 'non Party Contempt']
['contempt of Court' 'equity' 'property Law'] ['disobedience of Injunction' 'construction of Court Orders' 'torrens System Mortgage' 'disposition of Interest in Property' 'non Party Contempt']

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 / Notice of Motion to Strike Out Contempt Charge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the restraint on selling or disposing of any interest in the property was ambiguous as applied to a Torrens system mortgage.' 'Whether mortgaging the property with the ANZ Bank was a disposition of an interest in the property contrary to the order.' 'Whether the contempt charge against the solicitor adequately alleged the required mental element for non-party contempt.' 'Whether the charges adequately specified the contempt.' 'Whether the contempt proceeding had to be brought by separate summons in the Common Law Division under the Supreme Court Act 1970.']

Ratio Decidendi

The order restraining the plaintiff from selling or disposing of any interest in the property was not ambiguous. A mortgage of the property that diminished the owner's interest by $120,000 was a disposition of an interest in the property for the purposes of that order. The Statement of Charges sufficiently alleged that the solicitor knew of the order and assisted the plaintiff to mortgage the property to pay his own costs, which if established would satisfy the mental element for non-party contempt, and the charges adequately specified the contempt. Any procedural objection based on the Supreme Court Act 1970 did not deprive the Court of the ability to deal with the matter.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion to have contempt charge struck out dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion of 30 March 2007 is dismissed with costs.']