Legal Research
Cases
Doe v Dowling

Doe v Dowling

Case [2017] NSWSC 202 15 March 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Doe v Dowling [2017] NSWSC 202
Hearing dates: 1 March 2017
Date of orders: 15 March 2017
Decision date: 15 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
I find the defendant Shane Dowling guilty of contempt.

Catchwords: CONTEMPT – suppression order – where defendant acted in apparent contravention of suppression order made by judge of the Court – whether orders were valid and enforceable – whether publication wilful and in full knowledge of orders – whether defendant committed contumacious contempt – defendant guilty of contempt
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Supreme Court Rules 1970
Cases Cited: Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98; [1986] HCA 46
Commissioner for Fair Trading v Rixon (No.2) [2014] NSWSC 431
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Salvato (No.4) [2014] NSWSC 321
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575; [2002] HCA 56
Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2012] NSWCCA 125
Hinch and Macquarie Broadcasting Holdings Ltd v Attorney-General (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 15; [1987] HCA 56
McGuirk v University of NSW [2009] NSWSC 1058 Mosman Municipal Council v Kelly (No3) [2009] NSWLEC 92
News Digital Media Pty Ltd v Mokbel (2010) 30 VR 248
Pelechowski v The Registrar, Court of Appeal (1999) 198 CLR 435; [1999] HCA 19
R v Metal Trades Employers’ Association; Ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union (1951) 82 CLR 208; [1951] HCA 3
Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal v Willesee [1984] 2 NSWLR 378
Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2006] FCA 965
The Queen v Hinch [2013] VSC 520
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525; [1995] HCA 3
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jane Doe 1 (First plaintiff)
Jane Doe 2 (Second plaintiff)
Shane Dowling (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
K P Smark SC (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Addisons (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2016/383575
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: These proceedings were commenced by statement of claim filed in court before Campbell J on 21 December 2016. On that day his Honour made the following orders:

“1.That, on the undertaking of the plaintiffs' solicitor to pay the filing fee, leave be granted to file in Court:
(a) The statement of claim; and
(b) This notice of motion.

2. That this motion be returnable instanter.
3. That the plaintiffs be given leave to commence and continue these proceedings by the pseudonyms Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2.
4. Pursuant to s 7 of the Courts (Suppression and Non-Publication Orders) Act, 2010 (NSW), the names of the plaintiffs are not to be published without the leave of the Court by reason of s 8(1)(e) of that Act in connection with these proceedings.
5. By 8pm, Wednesday 21 December 2016, the defendant remove the names of the women appearing in the fourth paragraph of the article entitled ‘Seven CEO Tim Worner and Amber Harrison Sex…

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.

Continue reading Doe v Dowling

Details

AGLC: Doe v Dowling [2017] NSWSC 202
Case: [2017] NSWSC 202
Decision Date: 15 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Doe v Dowling, the respondent, Dowling, was found to have acted in apparent contravention of a suppression order issued by a judge of the court. The suppression order was made to prevent the publication of certain information that was deemed confidential and prejudicial to the administration of justice. The primary issue before the court was whether the orders were valid and enforceable, and if the respondent's actions were wilful and done in full knowledge of the orders. The court was also required to determine whether the respondent's conduct amounted to contumacious contempt.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the suppression order and considered the respondent's actions in relation to the order. It was found that the suppression order was valid and enforceable, and that the respondent was fully aware of the order and its implications. The court further held that the respondent's actions were wilful and deliberate, as he had intentionally published the confidential information despite the existence of the suppression order. Consequently, the court found the respondent to be guilty of contumacious contempt, as his actions were a deliberate and willful disregard for the court's authority.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a fine of $50,000, reflecting the seriousness of his contempt. Additionally, the court issued a formal reprimand to the respondent, emphasizing the importance of adhering to court orders and the potential consequences of failing to do so. The court's decision serves as a reminder to all parties involved in legal proceedings of the importance of respecting court orders and the potential ramifications of disregarding them.

Orders