GEMI 169 Pty Ltd v Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd (No 7)

The background to this matter is set out in my judgments of 5 August 2024, [1] and 14 August 2024. [2]

I shall use the same abbreviations here.

The Lenders sought orders that FLV and Mr Violi be found guilty of contempt for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Charge.

There were five charges in the Statement of Charge.

Charge 4 was, at the last moment, not pressed.

I found that FLV and Mr Violi had no case to answer in relation to charges 2, 3 and 5. [3] I dismissed charge 1. [4]

FLV and Mr Violi seek an order that the Lenders pay their costs of the contempt application and that such costs be assessed and payable forthwith.

I see no reason why I should not make those orders.

In particular, I do not see the fact that the respondents to the application were in breach of consent orders made at their own instigation, nor the fact that “the respondents elected not to disclose the defences until the last possible moment”, as submitted by Mr Sommerville and Mr Meyerowitz-Katz on behalf of the Lenders, to be reasons not to make the orders sought.

I accept the following submissions made on behalf of FLV and Mr Violi by Mr Golledge SC and Mr Edney:

In my reasons of 14 August 2024, I made some observations about the role played by the solicitor then acting for FLV and Mr Violi, Mr Lyne.

I invited submissions as to what course, if any, the Court should take in relation to Mr Lyne’s involvement.

On behalf of the Lenders, Mr Somerville and Mr Meyerowitz-Katz submitted:

I do not think it is appropriate that I take that course.

If the Lenders wish to seek a third party costs order against Mr Lyne, they should bring a motion seeking that relief.