Ferrier v Kelada

[2004] VSC 356

Contempt - Breach of Mareva injunction - Case to answer.

2. I am satisfied for purposes of this no case submission that in each instance that of Mr Kelada and that of Mr D'Urso there is a case of contempt of court to answer. It is appropriate, as demonstrated by long usage, to say less rather than more upon submissions of no case because pre-judgment is to be avoided as to the substantive matter and certainly pre-judgment as to credit is to be avoided as to the substantive matter. Accordingly I confine myself strictly to the question of whether it has been established by the plaintiffs in respect of each individual defendant respectively on proof admissible in respect of each individual defendant respectively the essential elements of the matter of contempt alleged against them, noting that paragraph 1(a) of the amended summons of the plaintiffs is not pressed further by them. By the prefatory criteria applicable at this stage of the proceedings I am satisfied first, that the relevant Order was made by Dodds-Streeton J of 22 September 2003; second, that the Order is adequately clear and unambiguous; next, that the Order was a restraining order and thus a number of the submissions made by Mr Isles are not to the point, including the authorities cited; next, that the two respective defendants were informed of and had knowledge of the Order; and finally, at a prima facie level that each of the defendants breached the Order.