Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101 Appeal from: In the matter of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Federal Court of Australia, QUD580/2016, Order dated 27 March 2017 and Orders 1, 2, 3, 6, 8,9 and 10 dated 28 March 2017)

File number: QUD 208 of 2017

Judges: BESANKO, WIGNEY AND BROMWICH JJ

Date of judgment: 28 June 2018

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of the validity of orders made by a judge of this Court – appeal against orders for two arrest warrants to issue CORPORATIONS – where arrest warrants issued for the arrest of the appellant in relation to examination for the purposes of a special purpose liquidators' investigation – where primary judge ordered that a warrant issue for the arrest of the appellant in order to secure his attendance at Court for an examination before a registrar – where primary judge ordered that a warrant issue for the arrest of the appellant following his failure to attend voluntarily for examination by the respondents, in their capacity as additional special purpose liquidators, on two separate occasions – whether appellant provided with no notice of orders requiring attendance for examination – whether primary judge erred in ordering a warrant for arrest to issue by failing to consider reasonable cause for non-attendance on examination dates – consideration of r 11.10 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) and matters identified in Ian Lawrence Struthers (in his capacity as liquidator) of PACI Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 864 CONTEMPT OF COURT – where primary judge signed a statement of charge for contempt of court arising from the appellant's failure to attend on two examination dates – where primary judge made further orders for a warrant to issue for the arrest and detention of the appellant to answer those charges of contempt of court – whether primary judge erred in ordering a warrant for arrest to issue by failing to consider r 42.14(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) correctly – whether primary judge failed to consider the defects in the statement of charge – consideration of the requirements of r 42.14(2) of the Federal Court Rules – consideration of the requirements of rr 41.06 and 41.07 of the Federal Court Rules PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where respondents filed a notice of objection to competency, but did not press this at the appeal hearing – where orders made by the primary judge were interlocutory in nature, so as to require leave to appeal – where no such leave required – consideration of this Court's appellate jurisdiction under s 24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1924 (Cth) – where judgment appealed from affects the appellant's liberty and was made in proceedings relating to an alleged contempt of court and so engaged s 24(1C) of the Federal Court of Australia Act – whether respondents' notice of objection to competency should be formally dismissed