Infa-Secure Pty Limited v Crocker (No 2) [2016] FCA 202

Infa-Secure Pty Limited v Crocker (No 2) [2016] FCA 202

Ms Crocker's conduct amounted to contumacious and deliberate defiance of the Court's authority. Her breaches of the undertaking spanned a sustained period, were motivated to cause harm to the applicant, and occurred with knowledge of the consequences and after warnings. Imprisonment is the appropriate punishment, partly suspended in view of personal circumstances, and indemnity costs are awarded irrespective of financial circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Infa-Secure Pty Limited; Respondent: Debra Ann Crocker
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings / Sentencing After Findings of Contempt
Outcome
Respondent found guilty of 29 counts of contempt; sentenced to a period of imprisonment, partly suspended; indemnity costs awarded to applicant.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Sentencing, Costs, Undertakings to the Court, Breach of Undertaking
Commercial Law Corporations Law Regulator and Consumer Protection Criminal Law Contempt of Court Sentencing Costs Undertakings to the Court +1 more

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 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Infa-Secure Pty Limited

Applicant

Debra Ann Crocker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Proceedings / Sentencing After Findings of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate penalty for contumacious, serious, and deliberate breaches of an undertaking to the Court?
  2. 2 Should a period of imprisonment be wholly or partly suspended for contempt?
  3. 3 Is an order for indemnity costs appropriate in contempt proceedings irrespective of the contemnor's financial circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Crocker's conduct amounted to contumacious and deliberate defiance of the Court's authority. Her breaches of the undertaking spanned a sustained period, were motivated to cause harm to the applicant, and occurred with knowledge of the consequences and after warnings. Imprisonment is the appropriate punishment, partly suspended in view of personal circumstances, and indemnity costs are awarded irrespective of financial circumstances.

Court Disposition

Respondent found guilty of 29 counts of contempt; sentenced to a period of imprisonment, partly suspended; indemnity costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent be imprisoned for a period of 13 weeks commencing from 4 March 2016, the first two weeks of which to be served in any event.
  • A warrant to issue for the respondent's arrest and committal to prison for two weeks.