Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Siminton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2008] FCAFC 90
CONTEMPT – appeal against finding of contempt and orders of imprisonment – whether s 65A of the Banking Act unconstitutional – held not unconstitutional CONTEMPT – appeal against finding of contempt and orders of imprisonment – whether contempt proceedings part of an abuse of process – held not an abuse of process CONTEMPT – appeal against finding of contempt and orders of imprisonment – whether interlocutory restraining order applied to money used by the appellant – whether interlocutory restraining order clear enough to found charge for contempt – whether primary judge should have admitted transcript to assist in construction of order – held order clear and designed to operate on future as well as present moneys – held reasons for judgment will be primary source of extrinsic material used in constructing orders – held that in any case order was clear and so there was no error in not admitting transcript CONTEMPT – appeal against finding of contempt and orders of imprisonment – whether primary judge erred in relying upon appellant's failure to give evidence to support inferences – held primary judge did not so err – appeal dismissed
Banking Act 1959 (Cth) ss 7, 8, 65A Athens v Randwick City Council (2005) NSWLR 58 considered Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton [2006] FCA 140 referred to Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 3) [2006] FCA 397 cited Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 6) [2007] FCA 1608 cited Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 7) [2007] FCA 1609 affirmed Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 8) [2007] FCA 1612 referred to Re Macks; Ex parte Saint (2000) 204 CLR 158 applied Siminton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (2006) 152 FCR 129 cited Siminton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2008] FCAFC 88 referred to Siminton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2008] FCAFC 89 referred to Universal Musical Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman Networks Ltd (2006) 150 FCR 110 applied DAVID ROBERT SIMINTON v AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate