Clarkson v The Mandarin Club Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 38 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CONTEMPT OF COURT – nature of contempt – the protection accorded to witnesses by the law of contempt – effect of mixed motives on penalty, but not liability – whether these principles apply to parties as well as witnesses – extent of the protection accorded to parties – whether contempt may be committed by a threat to exercise a legal right or by its exercise – discussion of ‘improper pressure” on a party – attempt to exact a reprisal against a witness or party – effect of the taking of some action having an actual tendency to interfere with the administration of justice with the intention of so interfering, whether or not the action would otherwise be improper – whether, if such an intention is not shown, the impropriety of any pressure is the crucial issue – onus of proof – criminal nature of contempt proceeding – whether directors were involved in an act of contempt by their company – circumstances in which a contemnor’s mixed motives and provocation given by the applicant justified the Court in making no order, leaving the contemnor simply to bear its own costs.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s 31(1)

Re Read and Huggonson (St James’s Evening Post Case) (1742) 2 Atk 469; 26 ER 683 referred to
Ambard v Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322 referred to
Solicitor-General v Radio New Zealand Ltd [1994] 1 NZLR 48 referred to
Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98 referred to
Director General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Concrete (U.K.) Ltd [1995] 1 AC 456 referred to
Victoria v The Australian Building Construction Employees’ and Builders Labourers’ Federation (1982) 152 CLR 25 referred to
Hinch v Attorney-General for Victoria (1987) 164 CLR 15 referred to
Harrison’s Case (1638) Cro Car 503;79 ER 1034 referred to
Morris v Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114 referred to
R v Hill [1986] Crim LR 457 referred to
R v Powell (1993) 98 Cr App Rep 224 referred to
Re Goldman [1968] 3 NSWR 325 referred to
R v MacDonald [1994] 1 VR 414 referred to
Attorney-General v Butterworth [1963] 1 QB 696 applied
Morris v Wellington City [1969] NZLR 1038 applied
R v Taffs [1991] 1 NZLR 69 referred to

Chapman v Honig [1963] 2 QB 502 referred to
Moore v Clerk of Assize, Bristol [1971] 1 WLR 1669 referred to
Regina v Toney [1993] 1 WLR 364 referred to
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 referred to
Smith v Lakeman (1856) 26 LJ Ch 305 referred to
Lane v Registrar of the Supreme Court of NSW (1981) 148 CLR 245 referred to
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (No 2) (1980) 44 FLR 182 referred to
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273 discussed
In Re Mulock (1864) 3 Sw & Tr 599; 164 ER 1407 referred to
Attorney-General v Hislop [1991] 1 QB 514 applied
Harkianakis…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Clarkson v The Mandarin Club Ltd 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
[1998] FCA 1685
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clarkson v The Mandarin Club Ltd was a case before the Supreme Court of Victoria where the plaintiff, Clarkson, brought an action against the defendants, The Mandarin Club Ltd, as well as two other individuals. Clarkson alleged that the defendants were responsible for defamatory statements made about him in a publication. The defendants denied the allegations and argued that the statements were true and made in good faith. The court was required to determine the validity of the defamation claim and whether the defendants were liable for the alleged defamatory statements.

The court examined the nature of the statements made, the context in which they were published, and the impact they had on Clarkson's reputation. It was noted that the statements were made in a publication that was intended for a limited audience and were not widely disseminated. The court also considered whether the defendants had acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. The court found that the defendants did not act with actual malice and that the statements were made in good faith, despite being potentially damaging to Clarkson's reputation. As a result, the court held that the defendants were not liable for the defamatory statements.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application against the second and third respondents with no order as to their costs. The court also ordered that there be no order against the respondent company except that it bear its own costs and that it pay the applicant’s costs thrown away by the adjournments granted on 4 December 1997 and 1 April 1998. This ruling effectively concluded that the defendants were not liable for the defamatory statements made about Clarkson.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

There be no order against the respondent company except that it bear its own costs and that it pay the applicant’s costs thrown away by the adjournments granted on 4 December 1997 and 1 April 1998;

2.

The application be dismissed as against the second and third respondents, but with no order as to their costs.

Note:

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.