Sterling Industries Ltd v Nim Services Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 193

Sterling Industries Ltd v Nim Services Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 193

The contempt proceedings and cross-examination sought by the applicant should be adjourned until the determination of the respondent’s appeal because to proceed would risk imprisonment for non-compliance with orders possibly beyond power or subject to appeal, and it would unjustly disadvantage the respondent in light of both pending appeal and criminal charges arising from the same facts.

Parties
Applicant: Sterling Industries Limited; Respondents: NIM Services Pty. Limited and Others; Second Respondent: John William Jackson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 1986
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory (application for Adjournment of Contempt Proceedings)
Outcome
Adjournment granted. Liberty to apply and costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Contempt of Court, Security for Costs, Self Incrimination, Effect of Appeal, Effect of Consent Judgment
Civil Procedure Trade Practices Adjournment Contempt of Court Security for Costs Self Incrimination Effect of Appeal Effect of Consent Judgment

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

Parties

Sterling Industries Limited

Applicant

NIM Services Pty. Limited and Others

Respondents

John William Jackson

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Interlocutory (application for Adjournment of Contempt Proceedings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to adjourn contempt proceedings pending appeal against orders requiring security and affidavit of assets
  2. 2 Whether continuing effect of the orders after a consent judgment has been entered
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a stay permits contempt proceedings to proceed

Ratio Decidendi

The contempt proceedings and cross-examination sought by the applicant should be adjourned until the determination of the respondent’s appeal because to proceed would risk imprisonment for non-compliance with orders possibly beyond power or subject to appeal, and it would unjustly disadvantage the respondent in light of both pending appeal and criminal charges arising from the same facts.

Court Disposition

Adjournment granted. Liberty to apply and costs reserved.

Orders

  • The notices of motion filed on 9 May 1986 be adjourned until the determination of the appeal against orders of Sheppard J. made on 23 April 1986.
  • Liberty to apply be reserved.