Squires, R.J. v. Stephenson, K. & Ors [1982] FCA 10

fete Cee a ts

«

(HRVISED PROM DRAPT CF OnAL JUPGVRUT)

IN THe PRDRAAL COURT OF AUSTRALT

= 3 VICTORTA DLOTAICT REGIOTRY ' v. 6 of 1983 )

INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

IN THR MatteeR of the Conc1ili-tion

aad Arbitration sct 1904

AND IN THR MATTER of oppl ications

under Sections 140 cnd@ 14l of the

sard Act

BETWHITT: RICHARD JAWES SOUTRES —_ Applicant

AND: KETTH SRCOUR. WATS HOTLAID ,

ay TT TIO Lat CHER

TUCES. GERPY THOLRIS, PA TAL ci

aes FALE ek By 7

MILLER, JOE dat was, Th eC DAVEY JOMSS AND PLIGHT STRIZIDS! ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALTE

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGHENT 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 avthorities 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

of proceedings for coniemnt of court in respect of a contempt

IL ¥ INS :

berlin nhad che od ine maak Se fam Dnt ce nae ee te ee A ee cee

WE LE Aen ae

ice] .

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 1 take 1s that, on the wording of that rule, it prescribes a condition befcre proceedings are commenced, However, provided that such service of the ordor has been carried out, 1% 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 1t imply it in my opinion. It simply requires that such service will have been effected before the comuencement 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