12 Nov 2021
Given the respondent's prolonged and partial non-compliance with prior sealed orders and timetabled directions, the Court declared non-compliance and imposed finalised disclosure orders and a sworn affidavit deadline to compel production of specified documents by 16 November 2021, reserving contempt and costs for further steps if non-compliance continues.
8 Jun 2021
Leave to bring a further appeal was granted because there are unresolved and significant questions of law about the application of the Clear Communications two-stage approach to non-party discovery where there has been non-compliance, including whether exceptional conduct must be shown to deny a non-party its reasonable costs, and those questions justify a further appeal despite the modest monetary amounts involved.
25 Mar 2019
Indemnity costs were ordered because multiple r 14.6 grounds were established: the plaintiff failed to comply with court orders requiring particulars and an index, pursued improper and unsubstantiated fraud allegations that were not made out and not seriously pursued at trial, added frivolous and vexatious causes of action and defendants' joinders, and continued litigation despite repeated full or substantial settlement offers; the claimed indemnity costs were limited to counsel's fees for steps recognised under the Rules and thus reasonable.
1 Mar 2019
Costs are to lie where they fall because the contempts were minor, caused no loss, the applicant's motive was largely punitive, and the Court exercised its discretion under the High Court Rules to refuse a costs award.
25 Feb 2019
Indemnity costs were justified because Manchester Securities had wilfully failed to comply with prior court orders and pursued a stay application that duplicated previously rejected arguments, demonstrating an element of impropriety and dilatory litigation conduct; s124 applies only to the levy proportion and indemnity costs are recoverable only as actual and reasonable costs, leading to an award of $29,704.01 to the Body Corporate after adjustments.
13 Dec 2018
Application to stay and adjourn was dismissed because (1) trial was imminent, (2) costs order was recent and a response to late application for security, (3) plaintiffs had complied with the security for costs order by paying $26,000, (4) staying the first and second plaintiffs would unfairly prejudice the third plaintiff, and (5) there was no cogent evidence of egregious non‑compliance or proven impecuniosity warranting denial of trial access.
4 Oct 2016
Credible, corroborated evidence of personal service by a process server and investigator established beyond reasonable doubt that both respondents received notice of the 21 October 2015 hearing; respondents' denials were not credible, so the prior finding of contempt for non‑compliance with Woolford J's orders is upheld and penalties are to be set at a separate hearing.
17 Jul 2015
Because the respondent failed to comply with the court's prior conditional relief (notably failing to pay the $50,000 security and remedy breaches despite indulgences), the court was justified in cancelling the lease and granting immediate possession subject to limited carve‑outs for chattels and a short vacate period.
18 Sept 2013
Because the order was clear and the respondent admitted the debt was payable and had funds available, the court exercised discretion to adjourn the committal application on strict conditional terms requiring personal payment of $14,278 by the specified deadline and reserved leave to relist for committal if payment was not made.
3 Mar 2011
The court found there was no compliance by Mr and Mrs Rogers with the orders of 15 December 2010; accordingly the orders in paragraph [137] were renewed with a new compliance date (24 March 2011), and the matter was adjourned to 25 March 2011 for review of compliance and determination of further sanctions (including likely committal), with a requirement that relevant medical and prison evidence be produced and able to be tested before any imprisonment of Mr Rogers is ordered.