In the matter of Mempoll Pty Ltd, Anankin Pty Ltd and Gold Kings Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 301

In the matter of Mempoll Pty Ltd, Anankin Pty Ltd and Gold Kings Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 301

Adjournment was refused as the evidentiary deficiencies could not be adequately remedied, and the nature of the deficiencies meant remediation would not advance the applicants' case. Leave to discontinue was refused because discontinuance is generally not available after a contested hearing has commenced, especially in quasi-criminal contempt proceedings and because other procedural defects persisted. The motion was dismissed for want of evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Motion for Contempt, Applications for Adjournment and Discontinuance
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Contempt Proceedings' 'discontinuance of Proceedings' 'evidentiary Requirements in Contempt' 'onus and Standard of Proof in Contempt Applications']
['contempt of Court' 'civil Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['adjournment of Contempt Proceedings' 'discontinuance of Proceedings' 'evidentiary Requirements in Contempt' 'onus and Standard of Proof in Contempt Applications']

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

Interlocutory Application / Motion for Contempt, Applications for Adjournment and Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether adjournment to enable applicants to remedy evidentiary deficiencies in contempt proceedings should be granted' 'Whether leave to discontinue contempt proceedings should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment was refused as the evidentiary deficiencies could not be adequately remedied, and the nature of the deficiencies meant remediation would not advance the applicants' case. Leave to discontinue was refused because discontinuance is generally not available after a contested hearing has commenced, especially in quasi-criminal contempt proceedings and because other procedural defects persisted. The motion was dismissed for want of evidence.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Adjournment refused' 'Leave to discontinue refused' "Applicants' contempt motion dismissed with costs" 'Defendants not entitled to rely at hearing on lay evidence not served by 8 March 2013, absent leave' 'Proceedings adjourned to 15 March 2013 for further directions']