Burns v Sunol

Case [2018] NSWCATAD 78


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Burns v Sunol [2018] NSWCATAD 78
Hearing dates: 14 November 2017, 9 January and 21 March 2018.
Date of orders: 10 April 2018
Decision date: 10 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: The Hon F Marks, Principal Member
Decision:

I make the following orders consequent upon the finding that the respondent has engaged in conduct as described in [91], [92] and [93] above that is capable of constituting contempt of this Tribunal;
These proceedings are stood over to enable the respondent to provide such evidence and to make such submissions as he may wish at a further hearing as to whether the Tribunal should refer his conduct to the Supreme Court.
The applicant may file and serve before 20 April 2018 any evidentiary material which he wishes to make available to the Tribunal limited to whether or not the respondent has complied with orders made by this Tribunal. Such evidence must be in sworn form, or, if not, the applicant must be prepared to be sworn as to its truthfulness at the next hearing.
Any evidence which the respondent wishes to provide should be filed in the Registry before 4 May 2018 and served on the applicant.
The proceedings are stood over for further hearing at 10 am on 11 May 2018.

Catchwords: Contempt-application for referral to Supreme Court-additional material considered-history of failure to comply with Tribunal orders-publication of material disparaging of Tribunal members-held capable of constituting contempt- respondent asked to show cause why matters should not be referred to Supreme Court
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
Cases Cited: Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246
Burns v Sunol (No 2) [2012] NSWADT 247
Burns v Sunol [2014] NSWCATAD 2
Burns v Sunol [2014] NSWCATAD 61
Burns v Sunol [2014] NSWCATAD 62
Burns v Sunol [2014] NSWCATAD 63
Sunol v Burns [2015] NSWCATAP 207
Burns v Sunol [2016] NSWCATAD 16
Burns v Sunol [2016] NSWCATAD 74
Burns v Sunol [2016] NSWCATAD 81
Burns v Sunol (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 236
Burns v Sunol [2017] NSWCATAD 215
Burns v Sunol (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 236
Burns v Sunol [2018] NSWCATAD 10
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers [1974] AC 273
Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3
A.M.I.E.U. v. Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 46
Mohareb v Palmer [2017] NSWCA 281
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Garry Burns (Applicant)
John Christopher Sunol (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant self-represented
Respondent self-represented
File Number(s): 201800016576

reasons for decision

Introduction and background

  1. These proceedings have their genesis in an Application filed by the applicant Garry Burns on 17 October 2017. In that application the applicant sought a finding by this Tribunal pursuant to the provisions of section 73 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (“the Act”) that the respondent John Christopher Sunol was in contempt of this Tribunal. The basis of the application was a publication of certain material by the respondent on a website concerning a Principal Member of this Tribunal and which…

Continue reading Burns v Sunol

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Burns v Sunol [2018] NSWCATAD 78
Case
[2018] NSWCATAD 78
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, Burns v Sunol involved an application by the applicant to refer the respondent's conduct to the Supreme Court for contempt. The applicant claimed that the respondent had failed to comply with orders made by the Court and had published material that was disparaging of members of the Tribunal. The dispute centred on whether the respondent's conduct was capable of constituting contempt of the Court and whether the Court should refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

The central legal issues were whether the respondent's conduct constituted contempt of the Court and, if so, whether the Court should exercise its discretion to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. The Court considered whether the respondent's failure to comply with orders and the publication of disparaging material amounted to contempt. The Court also considered whether the respondent had a genuine prospect of successfully defending the contempt allegations.

The Court found that the respondent's conduct was capable of constituting contempt, given his history of non-compliance and the publication of disparaging material about Tribunal members. The Court held that the respondent had to show cause why the matter should not be referred to the Supreme Court. The Court allowed the applicant to file evidentiary material and set a deadline for the respondent to provide evidence and submissions. The proceedings were stood over for a further hearing to allow the respondent to present evidence and submissions.

The Court made several orders, including standing over the proceedings to enable the respondent to provide evidence and make submissions. The applicant was permitted to file evidentiary material, limited to the issue of whether the respondent had complied with orders. The respondent had to file any evidence before a specified date and serve it on the applicant. The Court scheduled a further hearing to consider the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

I make the following orders consequent upon the finding that the respondent has engaged in conduct as described in [91], [92] and [93] above that is capable of constituting contempt of this Tribunal;

These proceedings are stood over to enable the respondent to provide such evidence and to make such submissions as he may wish at a further hearing as to whether the Tribunal should refer his conduct to the Supreme Court.

The applicant may file and serve before 20 April 2018 any evidentiary material which he wishes to make available to the Tribunal limited to whether or not the respondent has complied with orders made by this Tribunal. Such evidence must be in sworn form, or, if not, the applicant must be prepared to be sworn as to its truthfulness at the next hearing.

Any evidence which the respondent wishes to provide should be filed in the Registry before 4 May 2018 and served on the applicant.

The proceedings are stood over for further hearing at 10 am on 11 May 2018.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.