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

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

The 1st Defendant, a qualified solicitor, either deliberately risked or knew he would not comply with his undertaking given the contemporaneous documentary evidence and his repeated unfulfilled representations; lack of genuine repentance and the seriousness of the breach required an immediate custodial sentence. A...

Source-derived case information.

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
13 April 2000
Case Number
HCA9218/1999
Procedural Posture
Committal Proceedings for Contempt of Court (civil) / Sentencing Decision
Outcome
1st Defendant committed to 3 months immediate imprisonment for contempt of court
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Undertaking to Court, Imprisonment as Civil Contempt
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Enforcement Committal for Contempt Undertaking to Court Imprisonment as Civil Contempt

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 3 Authorities cited 3 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

Committal Proceedings for Contempt of Court (civil) / Sentencing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant breached an undertaking given to the court amounting to contempt
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant genuinely repented or had a reasonable basis to believe he could comply on 7 January 2000
  3. 3 What form of punishment is appropriate for the contempt committed

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st Defendant, a qualified solicitor, either deliberately risked or knew he would not comply with his undertaking given the contemporaneous documentary evidence and his repeated unfulfilled representations; lack of genuine repentance and the seriousness of the breach required an immediate custodial sentence. A sentence of 3 months imprisonment without suspension is appropriate to vindicate the court's authority.

Court Disposition

1st Defendant committed to 3 months immediate imprisonment for contempt of court

Orders

  • 1st Defendant to serve 3 months imprisonment forthwith for contempt of court
  • Execution of the order is not suspended under O.52 r.7(1)