DARYL MARK O\'SHAUGHNESSY v. DAVID WILLIAM GUNSON AND ANOTHER

DARYL MARK O\'SHAUGHNESSY v. DAVID WILLIAM GUNSON AND ANOTHER

The judge found the 1st Defendant's testimony and affidavits untruthful, rejected his asserted excuses for non-compliance, and held that the plaintiff proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st Defendant wilfully failed to comply with his undertaking to pay A$246,090.94 within 14 days, constituting contempt of court.

Citation
DARYL MARK O\'SHAUGHNESSY v. DAVID WILLIAM GUNSON AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: DARYL MARK O SHAUGHNESSY; 1st Defendant: DAVID WILLIAM GUNSON; 2nd Defendant: PACIFIC SUPERANNUATION FUND LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 April 2000
Case Number
HCA9218/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Action With Contempt Application Arising From Undertaking to Court / Decision on Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Committal for Contempt (hearing/decision)
Outcome
1st Defendant found to be in contempt of court for breach of undertaking
Legal Topics
Undertaking to Court, Contempt, Breach of Trust, Standard of Proof in Contempt Proceedings, Summary Judgment Consent Order
Source Language
EN
Civil Contempt of Court Trusts and Equity Civil Procedure Undertaking to Court Contempt Breach of Trust Standard of Proof in Contempt Proceedings +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DARYL MARK O SHAUGHNESSY

Plaintiff

DAVID WILLIAM GUNSON

1st Defendant

PACIFIC SUPERANNUATION FUND LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action With Contempt Application Arising From Undertaking to Court / Decision on Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Committal for Contempt (hearing/decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant breached an undertaking given to the court to pay A$246,090.94 within 14 days
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff proved contempt beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether the 1st Defendant had a reasonable excuse for non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found the 1st Defendant's testimony and affidavits untruthful, rejected his asserted excuses for non-compliance, and held that the plaintiff proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st Defendant wilfully failed to comply with his undertaking to pay A$246,090.94 within 14 days, constituting contempt of court.

Court Disposition

1st Defendant found to be in contempt of court for breach of undertaking

Orders

  • 1st Defendant found to be in contempt of court