Samootin v Shea & Ors [2006] NSWSC 535

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Samootin v Shea & Ors [2006] NSWSC 535

HEARING DATE(S) : 30/05/06

JUDGMENT DATE : 30 May 2006

JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : White J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 05/30/2006

DECISION : 1. I order that the plaintiff's notice of motion of 5 April 2006 be stayed until further order; 2. The costs of today will be the second defendant's costs of the notice of motion of 5 April 2006.

CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Plaintiff sought leave to charge second defendant with contempt of court – Plaintiff's application in state of disorder – Section 56(3) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) considered – Plaintiff a bankrupt – Section 60(2) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) considered –Leave refused – Plaintiff's notice of motion stayed until further order.

LEGISLATION CITED : Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Alexandra Samootin PARTIES : v Christopher George Shea & 5 Ors

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1973/01

COUNSEL : Plaintiff: In Person 2nd Defendant: In Person

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION DUTY JUDGE LIST

WHITE J

Tuesday, 30 May 2006

1973/01 Alexandra Samootin v Christopher George Shea & Ors JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application brought by a notice of motion filed on 5 April 2006 for leave to charge the second defendant with contempt of Court for not complying with orders described as orders 2 and 3 of the orders made by Justice Campbell on 13 September 2004. There are other paragraphs in the notice of motion but they do not seek any relief, save costs. 2 There are many difficulties with the application. First, it is not clear what is the leave sought. Secondly, if the application should be treated as one in which the plaintiff applies for the punishment of the second defendant for alleged contempt, it is not accompanied by an appropriate statement of charge. The statement of charge must clearly identify the precise conduct alleged to constitute contempt. The statement of charge which accompanied the notice of motion is a discursive document of some twelve pages, reciting the history of various procedural orders made, and referring to the contents of various documents. It concludes by charging that the second defendant has not complied with Justice Campbell's orders of 13 September 2004 and then quotes from a document which was the subject of his Honour's orders. It also wrongly alleges that I made a finding that the second defendant was in contempt of Court in a judgment I gave in these proceedings on 1 July 2005. 3 During the course of the hearing of the application, I endeavoured to ascertain from Ms Samootin the evidence she relied upon in support of the application. She referred to various earlier documents. She has not yet read an affidavit which was filed in support of the notice of motion, but it is sufficient to say that it is very difficult to ascertain from that document precisely what is relied upon as the evidence to substantiate the charge. 4 On 25 October 2005, Registrar Walton made an order or direction in the following terms: "I find that these orders of Justice Campbell made on 13 September 2004 have been substantially complied with".