Squires, R.J. v. Stephenson, K. & Ors [1982] FCA 10

berlin nhad che od ine maak Se fam Dnt ce nae ee te ee A ee cee

occurring before the service of the order upon the accused person in accordance with Order 40 rule 13(1). I do not accept that submission. The view that 1 take 1s that, on the wording of that rule, it prescribes a condition befcre proceedings are commenced, However, provided that such service of the ordor has been carried out, 1% would not prevent proceedings in respect of an alleged contempt of court occurring before such service. The rule does not say that such service must have occurred before the alleged contempt nor does 1t imply it in my opinion. It simply requires that such service will have been effected before the comuencement of the proceedings - irrespective of whether the alleged contempt occurred before or after the service. That reading of the rule seems to me to gain some support from what Sir Nigel Bowen said in the

In my opinion the purpose of Order 40 rule 13(1) is to ensure that, subject to relief from the rule being granted by the court under Order 1 rule &, a person shall not be subjected to proceedings for contempt of court unless he has been served with the order and it has been endorsed in the manner required by Order 40 rule 13(1). In this case that purpose has been achieved by the action of the respondents! solicitors,

Messrs Turner Freeman, as appears from their letter to the

As to that letter, Mr Kenz1e advanced an ably presented argument that the words "our clients" in the second and last paragraphs referred only tc two clierts, namely, the Flight

Stewards Associat:on 3nd lir Smith, the federal secretary of

the association. Alternatively. he submitted that the words "our clients" were ambiguous and any such ambiguity should be

T have looked carefully at the letter of 10 August 1981. I em unable to read it in the way Mr Kenzie urges. Nor do I consider the words ambiguous. I think probably my views on this have become apparent in the course of the hearing by reason of the matters I raised with Mr Kenzie. Accordingly, I shall only express them briefly. Firstly, in my opinion the words "our clients", read in the context of the letter as a whole, refer to all of the respondents in these proceedings, each of whom is in fact a client of Messrs Turner Freeman. In respect of each client a formel notice of appearance hes been entered in these proceedings by Messrs Turner Freeman. In addition, at the earlier hearing Messrs Turner Freeman instructed counsel on behalf of all of its clients who were respondents in the proceedings. At that hearing the applicant succeeded in obtazrning interim orders against each of Messrs Turner Freeman's clients and those clients were partially

successful in their application for a change of venue in the

Secondly, the letter from Messrs Turner Freeman expressly objected to the applicant's solicitor writing "direct to our clients" and expressly asked liim to "please address all correspondence to this office". I would interpret that as being a request that ell correspondence from Mr Macken to #ny of the clients of Messrs Turner Freeman (nemely those clients in

respect of whom they had entered en appearance) should be

oceans wh Mebie A nals gon lal basa ham tees Pia eT Rl Naha a A ae thn etme ATA me teat adam mae we aren rrmndng mkuer aie we Eo

oddressed to Messrs Turner Freeman rather than direct to the clients. That in turn is followed by the last paragraph, which has been debated at some length here, containing the assurance by Messrs Turner Freemen to Ilr Macken that "our clients are well aware of the orders which were made" and "have taken every step to date to ensure compliance with the Orders". The paragraph continued "You can rest assured that .'e have explained the effect of a breach of any of tre Orders to our clients and

it 1s certainly not their intention to do anything contrary to

In my view those words refer to all of the clients, who are respondents to these proceedings. JI may add that no evidence was led by the respondents to suggest that the words "our clients" in the letter referred to only two of the nineteen respondents for whom Messrs Turner Freeman were acting in these proceedings. By letter dated 31 January 1982 Mr Macken wrote to Messrs Turner Freeman, referred to their letter of 10 August 1981 and made it clear that he had interpreted the words "our clients" in Messrs Turner Freeman's letter of LO August 1981 as meaning all of the respondents in these proceedings. On the evidence that letter was hand delivered to Messrs Turner Freeman on Wednesday, 3 February 1982, i.e. a week ago. If the words "our clients" in Messrs Turner Freeman's letter of 10 August were intended to refer to only two of the respondents and not to refer to the other seventeen respondents, then one would have expected Messrs Turner Freeman to promptly teke steps to inform Mr Wacken that he had misunderstood the words "our clients" in their earlier letter. However, no evidence has been placed before

me to suggest that Messrs Turner Freeman ever took that step,

either by l+tter or telephone during the past week. Wor wes it suggested to Mr Macken 1n cross examination today thet onv such steps had been Caken or that he had misunderstood the

This aoplication today 1s concerned with respondents who, on the only material before me, have hed the contents cof the orders brought to their attention - I am referring to tke words "our clients are well aware of the Orders which were

made" - by their own solicitors and tney have hed the effect

of any possible breach of any of those orders explained to them.

It seems to me that in those circumstances the purpose of Order 4O rule 13(1) has been achieved and justice does not require that the court insist upon the rule being complied with; in other words it seems to me to be a proper case to grant the

I would like to make it clear that the order made does nov in any way prejudice the rights of the respondents in respect of any proceedings for contempt which may subsequently be brought before the court. The order merely dispenses the epplicant from the requirement that, before commencing proceedings for contemp, there must be personal service of the order, or a certified or office copy of it, on the persons against whom the proceedings are contemplated, which order has to be endorsed with the statement set out in the rules as to the effect of disobedience

i E J cerhiy that deweent the 3 i i poxeding pages ae a true copy of the a i Reasons fin Judgment bereu af the i Ronoureble Mu Juste KEELy 4 i *, :

+H . h f Dated: 0 Abreu vy 52. i Pees SEES. WISE Ty ee |