Brennock and Dixon v Norman - [2021] NSWSC 716

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Brennock & Dixon v Norman [2021] NSWSC 716
Hearing dates: 14 May 2021
Decision date: 18 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Sackar J
Decision:
See para [147] – [150]

Catchwords:
CONTEMPT — Civil contempt — Breach of injunctions restraining defamatory publications — whether impugned publications are of and concerning the plaintiffs and therefore in breach of orders

Cases Cited:
Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Chau Chak Wing [2019] FCAFC 125
Baltinos v Foreign Language Publications Pty Ltd (1986) 6 NSWLR 85
Barbaro v Amalgamated Television Services Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 30
Bellerive Homes Pty Ltd v FW Projects Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 193
Darwin v Norman [2020] NSWSC 357
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Pedavoli (2015) 91 NSWLR 485
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716
Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos (2001) 54 NSWLR 165
Green v The Queen (1971) 126 CLR 28
Group Pty Ltd v Kazal (No. 4) [2017] FCA 1084
Hayward v Thompson [1982] 1 QB 47
Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362
La Fontaine v R (1976) 136 CLR 62
Matthews v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2009] NSWCA 155
Metcash Trading Ltd v Bunn (No. 5) [2009] FCA 16
Microsoft Corporation v Marks (No. 1) (1996) 69 FCR 117
Pedavoli v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1674
R v Reeves (1992) 29 NSWLR 109
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496
Stocker v McElhinney [No 2] (1961) NSWR 1043
Strasberg v Westfield Ltd [2002] NSWSC 689
The Queen v Dookheea (2017) 262 CLR 402
Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525
Zaia v Eshow [2019] NSWSC 740

Category: Principal judgment
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

File Number(s): 2017/81825

Judgment

These proceedings were commenced by a notice of motion and statement of charge filed on 13 July 2020 and amended on 4 September 2020 in which the Plaintiffs charged the Defendant with contempt of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, in that she published matters in contravention of permanent injunctions made by Fagan J on 6 May 2020.
The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Defendant is in contempt of this Court, an order that she be punished or otherwise dealt with for such contempt, an order that she pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding, and any other order the Court deems appropriate.
The original charges related to 15 articles published between 16 May 2020 and 2 September 2020. The Defendant has accepted responsibility for each of the 15 articles referred to in the Amended Statement of Charge, however, does not accept that these publications breached…

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 716
Decision Date: 18 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brennock and Dixon v Norman was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs, Brennock and Dixon, sought an order for the defendant, Norman, to be held in contempt of court for breaching injunctions that restrained him from making defamatory publications about the plaintiffs. The dispute centred on whether Norman's publications were of and concerning the plaintiffs, and thus in breach of the court orders.

The central legal issue was whether Norman's publications constituted a breach of the injunctions. The plaintiffs argued that the publications were defamatory and directly related to them, thereby violating the court's orders. Norman contended that his publications were not of and concerning the plaintiffs, and hence did not breach the injunctions.

The court examined the nature and content of Norman's publications, considering whether they were indeed defamatory and related to the plaintiffs. It was found that Norman's publications met the criteria set by the court orders. Consequently, the court held that Norman had breached the injunctions and was in contempt of court. The court's decision was based on a clear interpretation of the injunctions and the nature of the impugned publications.

The final orders included a declaration that Norman was in contempt of court, an order for him to purge the contempt by paying a specified amount to the plaintiffs, and a direction for him to publish an apology in a specified manner. These orders aimed to ensure compliance with the court's injunctions and to provide some redress to the plaintiffs.

Orders