Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 3) [2017] FCA 1170 File number: NSD 850 of 2014
Judge: RARES J
Date of judgment: 18 August 2017
Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT – where respondent in contempt of court in proceedings in which he sought to file a defence out of time – where respondent had not purged contempt or shown any contrition or acknowledgement of Court's authority – principle that party in contempt of Court ordinarily will not be heard in proceedings in relation to which contempt exists – Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P 285 – consideration of appropriate test for hearing party who is in contempt in proceedings PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by respondent for leave to file a defence out of time – where time to file a defence had expired over two years earlier – where respondent provided no explanation for delay – where defence raised plea of justification without providing any particulars – whether exercise of Court's discretion under r 1.39 of Federal Court Rules 2011 to grant respondent leave would relieve against injustice
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Pt VB, s 37M Federal Court Rules 2011 rr 1.39, 5.22, 5.23, 16.07, 16.32
Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Celestino v Celestino [1990] FCA 449 FAI General Insurance Company Ltd v Southern Cross Exploration NL (1988) 165 CLR 268 Foster v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2014) 219 FCR 563 Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P 285 Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516 Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111 Permewan Wright Consolidated Pty Ltd v Attorney-General of the State of New South Wales; on the relation of Franklins' Stores Pty Ltd (1978) 35 NSWLR 365 Short v Short (1973) 7 SASR 1 Sydney Equine Coaches Pty Ltd v Gorst [2017] FCAFC 34 Tamaya Resources Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (2016) 332 ALR 199 Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 2) [2017] FCA 202 Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal [2016] FCA 1598 X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd [1991] 1 AC 1
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