Deputy Commissioner of Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia v Hickey [1999] FCA 259

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hickey [1999] FCA 259

CONTEMPT – disobedience of orders – Mareva injunctions granted in Supreme Court before actions transferred to Federal Court under cross-vesting legislation – whether Federal Court may punish disobedience of those orders - injunctions expressed in terms which applied to future personal exertion income – respondents employed by their wholly-owned company which contracted their services to others – payments made to that company – whether disbursement of those moneys by respondents contravened the injunctions – orders as served did not originally have endorsements of warning required by Supreme Court Rules – whether Court should excuse such non-compliance – respondents well aware of injunctions but not consequences of breach – contraventions continued after re-service of orders properly endorsed with warning – multiple contempts – whether actual or suspended prison terms appropriate – mitigating circumstance that purpose of Mareva injunction does not normally extend to restrict access to ordinary personal exertion income – very likely that applications to vary injunctions to enable such access would have been successful – fines imposed.

Federal Court of Australia Act (1976) (Cth), s 31

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 24 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s 11(3)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), Order 2 rule 1, Order 46 rule 4(5)

Federal Court Rules, Order 37 rules 2(3) and (5)

Abrook v Patterson (1995) 136 ALR 753 at 756 followed Deverall v Wannunup Development Nominees Pty Ltd (1994) 12 WAR 561 referred to Australian Securities Commission v Macleod (No. 2) (1993) 40 FCR 461 referred to Johnson v Grant (1923) SC 789 cited Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 612 referred to