ALEXANDER v. CRAWFORD [2003] NSWSC 426

ALEXANDER v. CRAWFORD [2003] NSWSC 426

The plaintiff was bound by the undertaking communicated to the Court by her counsel on 15 July 2002, as established by the Court record, the handwritten documents and the circumstances of the consent orders. It was not necessary for the defendant to prove personal service, a notice for compliance, the plaintiff's...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Arising From Interlocutory Undertakings in Equity Proceedings Concerning De Facto Relationship Property Claims / Hearing of the Defendant's Notice of Motion Dated 22 October 2002 and Statement of Charge After Overall Settlement of the Principal Proceedings
Outcome
The plaintiff was found guilty of Contempt of Court as charged; no further punishment or order was made because the litigation had settled overall and publication of the reasons was considered adequate.
Legal Topics
['breach of Undertaking to the Court' 'interlocutory Injunctions and Undertakings' 'standard of Proof for Contempt' 'enforcement of Undertakings' 'authority of Counsel to Give Undertakings' 'removal of Paintings From Property']
['contempt of Court' 'equity' 'de Facto Relationships' 'property Disputes'] ['breach of Undertaking to the Court' 'interlocutory Injunctions and Undertakings' 'standard of Proof for Contempt' 'enforcement of Undertakings' 'authority of Counsel to Give Undertakings' 'removal of Paintings From Property']

Source-derived case record

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 Arising From Interlocutory Undertakings in Equity Proceedings Concerning De Facto Relationship Property Claims / Hearing of the Defendant's Notice of Motion Dated 22 October 2002 and Statement of Charge After Overall Settlement of the Principal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff gave an undertaking to the Court on 15 July 2002 not to sell, dispose, encumber or otherwise deal with paintings located at 22 Hopetoun Avenue, Mosman except by housing them there or at another place ordered by the Court or agreed in writing.' 'Whether the plaintiff breached that undertaking by causing or permitting paintings to be removed from 22 Hopetoun Avenue, Mosman without a Court order or written agreement with the defendant.' "Whether proof of the plaintiff's personal knowledge of the undertaking, service of the order, or a notice for compliance was required before the undertaking could be enforced in contempt." 'Whether the contract for sale, advancement of settlement, vacant possession arrangements, or execution of transfer amounted to written agreement to remove the paintings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was bound by the undertaking communicated to the Court by her counsel on 15 July 2002, as established by the Court record, the handwritten documents and the circumstances of the consent orders. It was not necessary for the defendant to prove personal service, a notice for compliance, the plaintiff's personal knowledge of the undertaking, or actual authority beyond the undertaking recorded by the Court. The evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that paintings were at 22 Hopetoun Avenue when the undertaking was given and were later removed without Court order or written agreement with the defendant. The sale contract, vacant possession arrangements and advanced settlement...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff was found guilty of Contempt of Court as charged; no further punishment or order was made because the litigation had settled overall and publication of the reasons was considered adequate.

Orders

  • ["Upon the defendant's Notice of Motion dated 22 October 2002 and Statement of Charge, find that the plaintiff is guilty of Contempt of Court as charged."]