19 June 2010 so far as the farming activities are concerned; and by reason of the failure of the respondent to remove the

livestock from the properties by 30 July 2010. That failure

There is some additional background that should be mentioned.

First on 4 June 2010 as a result of one of the applications

brought by the applicants, I made a finding that the

respondent was in breach of the first order. It can be seen

that he, nevertheless, continued to act in breach of the order

Indeed, as I have indicated, it was on 11 June 2010 that I

gave reasons indicating that the first order would continue and that the additional order relating to the removal of the cattle would be made.

The proceedings came before me again in relation to these

orders on 3 August 2010 when I made additional findings about

the conduct of the respondent. At that time I was told that a

third application would be made because of the respondent's

failure to remove cattle by the date specified in the order

I should record the dates on which the respondent has been

found to have breached the orders. The farming activities

consisted in part of slashing grass and in part of planting

crops on the properties referred to in the order of 7 April.

The slashing occurred on 16, 17 and 19 April 2010 and again on

1, 2, 3 and 10 May 2010. Planting occurred on 24, 25, 26 and

27 May 2010 and on 15, 17, 19 June 2010. These dates are

recorded in a schedule which became Exhibit 1 and which was a

result of discussion between counsel for the parties. The

extent of the slashing and planting, which I have also

referred to as farming activities, appears from an aerial

photograph exhibited to an affidavit of one of the applicants.

He estimates that the activities extended over about 80

percent of the area of the properties the subject of the

It is apparent, therefore, that this conduct has been

persistent and extensive and carried out plainly in breach of

the orders which have been made and at least in part at a time

when the respondent must have been aware of the likely

Indeed, in a letter of 23 April 2010 from the solicitors for

the applicants to the solicitors for the respondent, reference

was made to his conduct in slashing part of the land. The

letter states that photographs were taken of the respondent

engaging in this activity and the letter warned that if he

persisted in that conduct, contempt proceedings would be

On 27 May 2010 the solicitors for the applicants wrote to the

solicitors for the respondent again. That letter stated that

the solicitors had been instructed by the applicants that the

respondent had commenced planting an oats crop on the land.

The letter pointed out that that was in clear contravention of

I have already mentioned that on 24 June 2010 I made findings

about the contempt of the respondent; and I made further findings to that effect on 3 August 2010.

The order for the removal of the cattle identified the date

for removal as 30 July 2010. That date was fixed after a

discussion involving the respondent, and was selected on the

basis that it was a date that would enable the respondent to

comply with the order. However, the evidence demonstrates

that no action has been taken to remove the cattle or any of

them. The number of cattle is not entirely clear. There is

evidence that some 175 cattle are on some of the properties

and that there are cattle on other properties to which the

second order relates, but no specific number is provided for

I should point out that the respondent has not sought to

challenge any of the evidence or to contend that he is not in

In Hafele Australia Pty Ltd v. Maggbury Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 397

at [36] and [37] Muir J, as his Honour then was, discussed the

purpose of contempt proceedings. His Honour said that "in the

case of civil proceedings the main purpose of the sanctions

provided by the rules in the event of a failure to comply with

In the present case coercion is not of primary significance.

The properties are under the control of receivers. In an

order made today ultimately by consent the receivers have been

authorised to sell the cattle on behalf of the respondent.

It, therefore, seems that the effect which the orders sought

The farming activities of the respondent appear to have

reached a stage of substantial completion and there has been

no suggestion of a continuation of those activities after

19 June. There has been likewise no suggestion that it is

appropriate to make orders requiring the respondent to restore

the properties to the condition in which they were prior to

Coercion, however, is not the only relevant consideration. In

Australian Meat Industry Employees' Union v. Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 46; (1986) 161 CLR 98 at 110

Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson and Deane JJ noted the dual character

of civil contempt. One aspect is the "penal or disciplinary

jurisdiction to be exercised by the Court in the public

In Evenco Pty Ltd v. Amalgamated Society of Carpenters,Joiners, Bricklayers and Plasterers of Australasia Union of Employees, Queensland [1999] QSC 77 at [4]- [6] Chesterman J, as his Honour then was, noted that in taking proceedings a party who brings a contempt application is "performing a public service as well as seeking to enforce its own rights." By doing that, that party "is maintaining respect for the law and confidence in judicial orders by obtaining from the court

a sanction which is appropriate in the particular circumstances." It seems to me that these are considerations of some significance in the present case.

In ASIC v. Michalik [2004] NSWC 1259 at [29] Palmer J

identified a number of principles or factors relevant for

consideration in dealing with the case before him. Some of

From the factors mentioned by his Honour I take the following:

(b) whether the contemnor was aware of the consequences to

(d) whether the contemnor has received, or sought to receive, a benefit or gain from the contempt;

(e) whether there has been any expression of genuine

(f) the character and antecedents of the contemnor;

(g) what punishment is required to deter the contemnor and

others of like mind from similar disobedience to the orders of

(h) what punishment is required to express the Court's

I will mention some of these factors briefly. The reason or

motive for the contempt has not been specifically identified.

The respondent has given no evidence in the proceeding. The

respondent, however, has for his working life, along with the

applicants, been engaged in a farming activity on the

properties mentioned in the orders, together with other

properties. It may be said that it has been his life's work.

The most likely explanation for his conduct is a hope that he

would receive, as a result of the winding up of the

partnership between the parties, the properties on which he

carried out the farming activities and wanted them to be in a

condition which would enable him to carry on his pastoral

activities, in particular the grazing of cattle. A possible

alternative is that he hoped to delay the winding up for a

lengthy period of time and wished to have an oats crop as feed

for his cattle in that period. In either case it would seem

to me that he intended to achieve a benefit or gain. Indeed,

it is difficult to see why he would have carried on these activities, particularly in the face of an order, unless there

I regard the respondent's contempt as of a serious order. I

have noted the occasions on which it occurred. I have noted

the warnings given to him at an early stage and that

proceedings were instituted at a relatively early stage as a

result of his continued breaching of the first order. I have

also noted that findings were made against him on two

His conduct may be regarded as quite extensive. His failure

to remove any of the cattle, notwithstanding the substantial

period of time given to him to do so, is completely

unexplained. In my view, that adds to the seriousness of his

I should also point out that there has been no expression of

contrition by the respondent. I make that observation against

the background that he has not sought to contest the issue

I should also mention that his character and antecedents

appear to be good. There is no suggestion of any previous

breach of a Court order or of any other significant

A number of factors are pointed out on his behalf. One was

that the primary nature of proceedings such as this is to

ensure compliance by coercing a respondent to carry out a

Court order. I have already mentioned the significance of

that factor but noted that it is by no means the only

Another is that his conduct has caused no loss to the

applicants. In support of that he relied upon the affidavit

of a person with high level qualifications in crop agronomy

and related areas, who expressed the conclusion that the

planting of the oats crop would have very little detrimental

effect on the soil of the properties and might, in fact, be

beneficial; and on an affidavit of a valuer that the oats crop

has improved the overall marketability of the property.

Those facts may be true but it seems likely that the

respondent's conduct commits part of the land to a particular

form of activity for some months. The proceedings are brought

against the background of a winding up of a partnership

between the parties. There is a prospect that other parties

than the respondent might have the benefit of future ownership

and use of the properties in respect of which the prohibition

of the particular farming activities was ordered, and their

intended use might not coincide with what results from the

It was also submitted that he did not intend any harm to the

property but that he only wanted to farm the land, that being

evident from earlier proceedings between the parties. In the

sense that he wished to further his farming activities, I have little difficulty accepting that submission.

It was also pointed out that he cares for his mother who is

aged and suffers from dementia. Indeed, it was submitted that

if the respondent is not available to continue to care for

her, it is likely that she will have to be removed from the

only home she has known since she married the father of the

respondent and of the male applicants. There has been no

suggestion that this submission is not correct, although in

accepting it I do not wish to suggest that the male applicants

In addition, the mother of the respondent has a right to

reside in a house on one of the farms which is conditional

upon her continuing residence there. It is submitted that if the respondent were not available to continue to care for her,

resulting in her having to live elsewhere, her right would

cease. Again there is no suggestion that that submission is not correct.

submissions for the applicants. It is that the respondent is

of an unusual personality type. That appears to be a

reference to what emerged from the substantive hearing before

me in related proceedings. It reflects the respondent's

determination to remain on the farms and his strong attachment

to them because of their long-standing connection with the

Paroz family. It may provide in some part an explanation for

the respondent's conduct but plainly it offers no excuse for

it and cannot be a particularly significant factor in any

Mr Ferrett of Counsel, who appeared for the respondent,

provided a useful and extensive summary of a number of cases

in which penalties have been imposed for contempt. I do not

propose to refer to it in detail, but will mention some of the

One was the Law Institute of Victoria v. Nagle [2005] VSC 47.

In that case a person was punished for 44 breaches of an

injunction restraining him from acting as a solicitor when not

entitled to do so. The effect of the penalties imposed was a

sentence of 22 weeks imprisonment wholly suspended for a

In another case, Queensland Law Society v. Sande [1998] 1 Qd R

273, a person who had acted as a solicitor when not entitled to do so and who had been restrained from doing so, breached the restraining order on several occasions. He was fined and

sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months which was

In Harris v. Muirhead [1993] 2 Qd R 527 two

persons interfered with possession by receivers of real

property over which they had previously granted a mortgage.

They were found to have done so intentionally and in contempt

of Court. Each was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six

In R v. Lemmens [2010] QSC 271 a person who failed to comply

with a subpoena was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of

four months. That person was already serving a term of

The authorities provided by Mr Ferrett demonstrate that an

extensive range of penalties may be imposed in a case like

Reference was also made to Lade & Co Pty Ltd v. Black [2005]

QSC 325. Cattle were permitted to stray from a property in

breach of undertakings. A fine of $500 was imposed. It

should, however, be noted that in that case the Court of

Appeal subsequently determined that contempt resulted from any

breach of the order. I do not find this case of much

assistance in dealing with the proceedings before me.

In Camm v. ASI Development Co Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 317 a

sentence of six months' imprisonment had been imposed on a

person in breach of orders relating to the specific

performance of a contract of sale. It is apparent that, on appeal, the Court did not consider the order unduly severe notwithstanding the poor health and indigent circumstances of the person to whom the order was directed. That is because the punishment was imposed to "vindicate the authority of the cour,t and to protect the interests of the party who has the benefit of an order of the court by coercing the recalcitrant party into performing his or her obligations." The Court held that in that case "the only order likely to impose an effective sanction for Mr Camm's deliberate defiance of the authority of the court and to coerce him into divulging the true whereabouts of the vessel" the subject of the order was an order for imprisonment. It should, however, be noted that the Court also considered that Mr Camm's fate was in his own hands, which made the submission that the punishment was excessive not particularly compelling.

Since in the present case there is no significant suggestion

of coercion, the term imposed in Camm is, in my view, not a

particularly good guide to the penalties to be imposed in the

In Formal Wear Express Franchising Pty Ltd v. Roach [2004] QCA

339 a person had given an undertaking not to conduct or be

concerned or interested in any business for the mobile hire of

formal menswear within a particular area. The undertaking was

breached by a single transaction resulting in a fine of

$3,000. Shortly after the fine was imposed, two further

transactions occurred, and a little later another transaction.

At first instance the person who had given the undertaking was

sentenced to a term of six months' imprisonment. On appeal

that was reduced to a term of three months on each of the

three counts of contempt, the sentences to be served

Williams JA, with whom the other members of the Court agreed,

said that because of the contemptuous behaviour of the applicant in continuing to breach the undertaking so soon

after being fined for contempt, it was appropriate to impose a

custodial sentence. His Honour stated that this was

particularly the case where there had been no acknowledgment

of wrongdoing by the applicant at the sentencing hearing or

In Rich v. Attorney-General for the State of Victoria [1999]

VSCA 14 at [45] the view was taken that the imposition of a

global punishment in respect of a number of punishable

I, therefore, propose to impose separate penalties in respect

of each of the acts of contempt identified in Exhibit 1.

In respect of the 11 events occurring between 16 April and

27 May 2010, which were the subject of the application filed

on 3 June 2010, I intend to impose a separate fine for each in

In respect of the events the subject of the application filed

on 6 July 2010, which occurred on 15, 17 and 19 June, I intend

to impose a more serious sentence. I intend to impose a

In respect of the contempt the subject of the application

filed on 3 August 2010, I intend to impose a sentence of nine

months' imprisonment. I do that against the background of the

litigation and other matters which have occurred since the

I have imposed terms of the lengths I have identified

because I intend to make an additional order. That order

gives recognition to the role the respondent plays in caring

for his mother. I intend to order that the terms of

imprisonment be suspended forthwith for a term of two years.

Because I intended to take that course, it seemed to me not

inappropriate to mark the significance of the conduct by the

I should add that each of the terms of imprisonment are to be

Stand up, Mr Paroz. Mr Paroz, you have been found guilty of

contempt of Court on 11 occasions between 16 April and 27 May

2010 by reason of your slashing and planting activities on the

properties referred to in the order made on 7 April 2010.

In respect of each occasion, I order you be fined the sum of

In respect of the contempts committed on 15, 17 and 19 June

2010, I order that you be imprisoned for a period of five

In respect of the contempt of Court constituted by your

failure to remove cattle from the property referred to in the

order dated 11 June 2010 and finalised on 6 July 2010, I order that you be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine

I order that all terms of imprisonment be suspended forthwith.

You must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment

within a period of two years. No doubt your Counsel will

explain to you fully the consequences of your doing so but you

may well end up serving the balance of the period or a

substantial part of the period nominated if you commit another

HIS HONOUR: The applicants have succeeded in obtaining orders

against the respondent as a result of a series of acts of

contempt of orders obtained by them over a period commencing

on 16 April 2010 and, in fact, continuing up until now. They

seek their costs of their applications on an indemnity basis.

It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that their

motivations are by no means limited to upholding the authority

of the Court or matters of public interest. Other submissions

adverse to them are set out in the written submissions made on

It seems to me that the proceedings commenced at a time when

the respondent had commenced to breach the order made on

7 April 2010 and clearly with a view to ensuring future

compliance. Warning was given to the respondent coupled with

a threat to commence proceedings if he did not desist. He

continued his conduct in the face of that warning, and

proceedings were commenced. As time went by it was apparent,

notwithstanding findings made against him, that he was

continuing with his conduct, and allegations about that were

added to the allegations initially raised against him. While

as things have turned out, coercion has ceased to be a

matter of primary concern in these proceedings, it may

perhaps fairly be said that is only as a result of the

respondent's consent given today to an order enabling the

removal of his cattle from the properties mentioned in the

significant public interest in upholding the authority of the

That was recognised by Gillard J in Law Institute of Victoria

Limited v Nagle [2005] VSC 47 at [26]. It was also recognised

by Chesterman J, as his Honour then was, in Evenco Pty Ltd v.

Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, Joiners, Bricklayers and

Plasterers of Australasia Union of Employees, Queensland (1999) QSC 77 at [4]- [6]. It has at times been recognised that an order for indemnity costs is also part of the punishment appropriately imposed on a person who acts in breach of orders of a Court.

In my view, this is an appropriate case in which to order the

respondent pay the applicant's costs of these three applications including reserved costs on an indemnity basis.

Their conduct in bringing these proceedings, in my view,

appropriately provides support for the authority of the Court

in making orders. That is a matter of considerable public

The continued disregard by the respondent of those orders, a

disregard which has continued up to the present, demonstrates

an unreasonableness in his conduct which would also justify an

Accordingly, I order the respondent pay the applicants' costs

of and incidental to these proceedings on an indemnity basis.

HIS HONOUR: The order extends to the payment of any reserved