Paccar Financial Pty Limited v Ian Menzies & Colleen Menzies (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1622

Paccar Financial Pty Limited v Ian Menzies & Colleen Menzies (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1622

The defendants deliberately and contumeliously refused to comply with clear court orders requiring return of the plaintiff's property and had not purged their ongoing contempt. Their claimed disagreement with the earlier decision did not justify disobedience, because court orders must be obeyed and the remedy for error is appeal. A fine or non-custodial sentence would be inadequate, and although the defendants' subjective circumstances were considered, full-time custodial sentences were warranted, with a longer term for the first defendant because his conduct and non-disclosure made him more culpable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Sentence / Sentence Following Finding of Contempt
Outcome
The first defendant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of six months and the second defendant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of two months.
Legal Topics
['sentence for Contempt' 'wilful Disobedience of Court Orders' 'subjective Features on Sentence' 'custodial Sentence' 'culpability']
['contempt of Court' 'sentencing' 'civil Procedure'] ['sentence for Contempt' 'wilful Disobedience of Court Orders' 'subjective Features on Sentence' 'custodial Sentence' 'culpability']

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 of Court Sentence / Sentence Following Finding of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalty should be imposed on the first and second defendants for contempt of court by failing to forfeit and return the plaintiff's property." "Whether the defendants' wilful and contumelious disobedience of court orders warranted full-time custodial sentences." 'How the subjective circumstances and relative culpability of each defendant should affect sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants deliberately and contumeliously refused to comply with clear court orders requiring return of the plaintiff's property and had not purged their ongoing contempt. Their claimed disagreement with the earlier decision did not justify disobedience, because court orders must be obeyed and the remedy for error is appeal. A fine or non-custodial sentence would be inadequate, and although the defendants' subjective circumstances were considered, full-time custodial sentences were warranted, with a longer term for the first defendant because his conduct and non-disclosure made him more culpable.

Court Disposition

The first defendant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of six months and the second defendant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of two months.

Orders

  • ['The first defendant is sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of six months, commencing 6 September 2016 and concluding 5 March 2017.' 'The second defendant is sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of two months, commencing 6 September 2016 and concluding 5 November 2016.']