Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Guoao Holding Group Co Ltd v Xue (Contempt) [2024] FCA 278 File number: NSD 580 of 2022
Judgment of: STEWART J
Date of judgment: 25 March 2024
Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT – where the applicant seeks orders that the first respondent be found guilty of criminal or civil contempt by acting in breach of freezing orders – where the applicable standard of proof is the criminal standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt – whether the alleged contemnor had knowledge of the freezing orders – whether wilful blindness amounts to knowledge –whether the basis for contumacy has been made out – whether transactions were within permitted exceptions to freezing orders
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 140, 141 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 31 Federal Court Rules 2011 r 42.21
Cases cited: ACCC v Halkalia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 522 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2001] NSWCCA 32; 122 A Crim R 166 ASIC v Sigalla (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 1076 ASIC v Sigalla (No 4) [2011] NSWSC 62; 80 NSWLR 113 Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 46; 161 CLR 98 Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation v Minister of State for Industrial Relations [1982] FCA 327; 43 ALR 189 Burwood Council v Ruan [2008] NSWLEC 167 CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 7) [2015] VSC 477 CFMEU v BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1758 CFMEU v Boral [2015] HCA 21; 256 CLR 375 CFMEU v Grocon Constructors (Victoria) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 261; 47 VR 527 Coward v Stapleton [1953] HCA 48; 90 CLR 573 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Gashi (No 2) [2011] VSC 351; 84 ATR 175 Eshow v Zaia [2020] NSWCA 10 Fortune Holding Group Pty Ltd v Zhang (No 2) [2017] VSC 738 Giorgianni v The Queen [1985] HCA 29; 156 CLR 473 Guoao Holding Group Co Ltd v Xue (No 2) [2022] FCA 1584 He Kaw Teh v The Queen [1985] HCA 43; 157 CLR 523 Huang v Liao [2022] NSWSC 347 Huang v Liao [2022] NSWSC 526 Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2015] FCA 1275; 238 FCR 209 Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Timania Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 155; 221 ALR 823 Jones v ACCC [2010] FCAFC 136; 189 FCR 390 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298 Jorgensen v Fair Work Ombudsman [2019] FCAFC 113; 271 FCR 461 Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111; 256 FCR 90 Macgroarty v Clauson [1989] HCA 34; 167 CLR 251 Madeira v Roggette Pty Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 Qd R 394 Madeira v Roggette Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 357 Mead v Mead [2007] HCA 25; 235 ALR 197 Mirus Australia Pty Ltd v Gage [2017] NSWSC 1046 Pereira v Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] HCA 57; 82 ALR 217 R v Crabbe [1985] HCA 22; 156 CLR 464 Rafferty v Madgwicks [2012] FCAFC 37; 203 FCR 1 Sigalla v TZ Ltd [2011] NSWCA 334 Sun Newspapers Pty Ltd v Brisbane TV Ltd [1989] FCA 805; 92 ALR 535 Tchia v Rogerson (1992) 111 FLR 1 Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; 183 CLR 525 Yuan v Huang [2023] NSWSC 1021 Zhang v Shi (No 5) [2021] VSC 695
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