The Court held that lodging materially inaccurate ASIC returns in purported compliance with a court order constitutes civil contempt where the party voluntarily failed to take adequate steps to ensure the returns were true to their knowledge and belief, even where the inaccuracy resulted from neglect rather than deliberate falsification. Under s 98(3) of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), directors of corporate defendants found in contempt bear the onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities that the disobedience occurred without their consent or connivance and that they took all reasonable measures to ensure compliance; directors who failed to read the returns, check the instructions given to the accountant, or verify accuracy before lodgement could not discharge this burden. The Court also held that a party's responsibility for compliance with a court order cannot be delegated to professionals such as accountants, and reliance on a professional without any independent verification does not constitute adequate steps toward compliance.
The full text is available to signed-in members.