Brennock and Dixon v Norman - [2021] NSWSC 1182

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Brennock & Dixon v Norman [2021] NSWSC 1182
Hearing dates:
11 August 2021

Submissions of the plaintiffs dated 28 June, 17 & 20 August

Submissions of the defendant dated 28 July and 23 August
Statement from the defendant dated 17 August
Decision date: 17 September 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Sackar J
Decision:
See [66]-[68]

Catchwords:
CONTEMPT – sentencing – defamation – failure to comply with permanent injunctions restraining further publication of defamatory material

Legislation Cited:
Bill of Rights 1688 (UK)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Australian Meat Industry Employees Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98
Darwin v Norman [2020] NSWSC 357
Director of Public Prosecutions v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 732
Dowling v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (2018) 99 NSWLR 229
Grocon v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No. 2) [2014] VSC 134
Haritopoulos Pty Ltd v Scott [2007] VSCA 174
Live Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Rabbi Ulman and Ors [2018] NSWSC 393
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Dangerfield [2016] NSWCA 277
Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Manian (No. 2) (1992) 26 NSWLR 309
Street v Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 767
Ulman v Live Group Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 338
Vaysman v Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc [2011] FCAFC 17
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525
Wood v Staunton (No. 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183

Texts Cited:
N Adams J and B Baker, “Sentencing for Contempt of Court”(29 February 2020, National Judicial College of Australia and the Australian University Sentencing Conference)

Category: Sentence
Parties: Adrian Brennock (second plaintiff)
Phillip Dixon (third plaintiff)
Gillian Linda Norman (first defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Olson (plaintiffs)
K Smark SC (defendant)
Solicitors:
Rose Litigation Lawyers (plaintiffs)
Pro bono assistance (defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/81825

Judgment

Introduction

I gave judgment in this matter on 18 June 2021. I found the defendant guilty of contempt in publishing certain matters on her website,
In particular as indicated in that judgment I found her guilty of publishing six articles, identified as articles 3, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 in my judgment.
As the findings make clear the defendant published the infringing matters in contravention of permanent injunctions granted by Fagan J as part of final relief in defamation proceedings brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant: Darwin v Norman [2020] NSWSC 357 (“Darwin v Norman”).
What is left for decision is the question of the appropriate penalty. The Plaintiff relied upon affidavits previously filed together with an affidavit of William Fitzgerald sworn on 25 June 2021. The defendant as before read no evidence.

Legal Principles

It is agreed that the applicable legal principles are as follows.
The penalty for the common law offence of contempt is at large (subject to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brennock and Dixon v Norman and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWSC 1182
Decision Date: 17 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Brennock and Dixon v Norman involved two applicants seeking contempt of court proceedings against Norman. The applicants had previously obtained permanent injunctions against Norman, prohibiting him from making defamatory statements about them. Norman had been found guilty of contempt of court for breaching these injunctions. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Norman's contempt.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence should be imprisonment or a fine, and if so, the length of the imprisonment or the amount of the fine. The applicants argued that the contempt was egregious, as Norman had deliberately and repeatedly breached the injunctions, causing significant harm to their reputations. Norman, on the other hand, claimed that the contempt was not intentional and that he had been confused about the scope of the injunctions.

The court considered the severity and nature of the contempt, the need for deterrence, and the circumstances of the case. It was noted that Norman had a history of making defamatory statements and had shown a blatant disregard for the court's orders. The court found that the contempt was deliberate and that the applicants had suffered significant harm as a result. The court ultimately decided that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to uphold the authority of the court and to deter future breaches of injunctions. Norman was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

The court also ordered that Norman pay costs to the applicants, reflecting the severity of his contempt and the need for deterrence. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to court orders and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Orders