Leigh v Bruder Expedition Pty Ltd

[2022] QCA 267

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Courts and Judges
2. › Contempt
3. › Disobedience of orders of court
4. › Injunctions
5. › Clarity and ambiguity of orders
6. › Whether order referring to external document sufficiently clear to found contempt
7. › Whether phrase 'substantially to the same effect' too uncertain
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Contempt
3. › Procedure and evidence
4. › Knowledge of order
5. › Whether sufficient material to prove beyond reasonable doubt that contemnor knew of order before breach
6. › Inference from circumstances
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › What constitutes judgment or order
4. › Pronouncement of order in court
5. › Whether agreement between judge and counsel as to terms of order constitutes pronouncement
6. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 660(1)(a)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Enforcement of judgments and orders
4. › Filing of order
5. › Whether order enforceable before filing
6. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 661

Quick Take

A court order that refers to statements defined in an external document (such as a statement of claim) is not necessarily too ambiguous to found contempt proceedings, provided the contemnor could not have been in real doubt about what the order meant. An order is 'pronounced' in court within the meaning of UCPR r 660(1)(a) where the judge and counsel agree on the precise wording and the judge indicates the terms are acceptable, even without formal language such as 'I order that'. An order need not be filed before a contempt application is brought, provided it is filed by the time of the hearing.