NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : ALEXANDER v. CRAWFORD [2003] NSWSC 426 HEARING DATE(S) : 03-04/03/03 JUDGMENT DATE : 22 May 2003 JURISDICTION: EQUITY JUDGMENT OF : Bryson J at 1 DECISION : Plaintiff is guilty of Contempt of Court as charged.
CATCHWORDS : CONTEMPT - what constitutes - breach of undertakings - plaintiff in De Facto Relationships claim applied for injunction to restrain defendant from approaching house and other interlocutory orders - parties agreed to various interlocutory injunctions and undertakings including plaintiff not to deal with paintings in the house "other than housing the paintings at the said property, or such other place as the Court may order or otherwise agree in writing" - arrangement to inspect and catalogue paintings was not carried out - parties joined in selling house and as settlement approached plaintiff removed paintings without asking for agreement or Court order - after hearing of charge of contempt, parties settled proceedings overall - finding of contempt but no further order - discussion of proof of undertaking where communicated to Court by counsel - the Court accepts the reality of representation of parties to civil litigation by their solicitors and counsel. LEGISLATION CITED : s.118 of the Evidence Act 1995 Witham v. Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525 Australian Meat Industry Employees' Union v. Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Hughes [2001] ATPR 41-807 C C O M Pty Ltd v. Jiejing Pty Ltd (1992) 36 FCR 524 Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd (1992) 1 AC 191 CASES CITED : Callow v. Young (1886) 55 Law Times NS 543 In Re Evans, Evans v. Evans [1893] 1 Ch 252 Taylor v. Whelan [1962] VR 306 Biba Ltd v. Stratford Investments Ltd [1973] 1 Ch 281 D v. A & Co. [1900] 1 Ch 484 Hussain v. Hussain [1986] Fam 134 at 140 Douglas v. Douglas (1976) 10 ALR 285 PARTIES : Victoria Alexander - Plaintiff Robin Crawford - Defendant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3492/02 COUNSEL : J. Wheelhouse - Plaintiff P. Brereton SC & A. Vincent - Defendant SOLICITORS : Delaney Lawyers - Plaintiff Barkus Edwards Doolan - Defendant
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