Federal Court of Australia
vd
JUDGMENT ite. .2O%, , Bl
veseavovevsvccenel, enececccevoe
I TES FRDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALTA
VICTORIA DISTRICT RECISTRY
) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT Rec rerny )
INDUSTRIAL DIVISTON
No. 6 of 1981
Conciliation 5 1904
AND IN THR MATTER of applications
under Sections 140 and 141 of the said Act
BETWEEN: RICHARD JAMES SQUIRES a Applicant
se STEPHENSON, GLEN HOLLAI ; RRS SHUTH
Lis
— JONES amt FLIGHT
ESSOCTATION OF AUSTRALIA Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 10 February 1981 . ; KEELY J.
I.do not need to hear you, Mr Ginnane, as I have decided to grant the application. I have read the authorities cited
by counsel on both sides.
Mr Kenzie has put a number of arguments to me, one of which goes to the construction of Order 40 rule 13(1). He
submitted that Order 40 rule 13(1) prevents the commencement
o
of proceedings for contempt of court in respect of a contempt
occurring before the service of the order upon the accused person in accordance with Order 40 rule 13(1). I do not accept that submission. The view that I take is thet, on the wording of that rule, it prescribes a condition before proceedings are commenced. However, provided that such service of the order has been carried out, it would not prevent proceedings in respect of an alleged contempt of court occurring before such service. The rule does not say that such service must have occurred before the alleged contempt nor does it imply it in my opinion. It simply reouires that such service will have been effected before the commencement of the proceedings - irrespective of whether the alleged contempt occurred before or after the service. That reading of the rule seems to me to gain some support from what Sir Nigel Bowen said in the
Sunibrite case (47 F.L.R. 73 at p.76).
In my opinion the purpose of Order 40 rule 13(1) is to ensure that, subject to relief from the rule being granted by the court under Order 1 rule 8, a person shall not be subjected to proceedings for contempt of court unless he has been served with the order and it has been endorsed in the manner required by Order 40 rule 13(1). In this case that purpose has been achieved by the action of the respondents! solicitors,
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