NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Duncan-Strelec v Tate [2008] NSWSC 1145
HEARING DATE(S) : 24/10/08 JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : Young CJ in Eq
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 24 October 2008
DECISION : Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the third defendant was in contempt of court.
CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE [693]- Contempt- Disobedience of court orders- Consent orders signed by counsel were made in court in the absence of officers of third defendant company- Nothing in the third defendant's solicitors' correspondence that suggests a lack of its awareness- No explanation proffered by third defendant- Court must infer given the seriousness of the making of an injunction over significant assets of the third defendant that orders must be known to all in control of the company.
LEGISLATION CITED : Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Pt 40 r 7
Alexander v Crawford [2003] NSWSC 426 Anderson v Hassett [2007] NSWSC 1310 CASES CITED : Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1993) 11 ACSR 103 Kirkpatraick v Kotis (2004) 62 NSWLR 567 Leung v Good Friend Development Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 142 Spokes v Banbury Board of Health (1865) LR 1 Eq 42
Amanda Duncan-Strelec (P1) David Strelec (P2) PARTIES : Dunlec Pty Ltd (P3) Thomas Richard Tate (D1) Ruth Tate (D2) Wamego Pty Ltd (D3)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 6428/06
COUNSEL : A P Coleman (P) T A Alexis SC (D3)
SOLICITORS : Kemp Strang (P) PMF Legal (D3)
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