Legal Research
Cases
Emmanuel College v Rowe

Emmanuel College v Rowe

Case [2014] QSC 238 29 September 2014

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Emmanuel College v Rowe [2014] QSC 238

PARTIES:

EMMANUEL COLLEGE, ACN 010 563 256

(applicant)

AND

CHAD EVERETT ROWE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

5646 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

29 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 August 2014

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

1.     The respondent has committed contempt of court by breaching:

the order of Dalton J made on 21 November 2013 in proceeding No. BS 5853 of 2013 ("the principal proceeding") as extended by order of Byrne SJA on 26 November 2013 and further extended on 27 November 2013; anda.

the undertakings recorded in the order entered by the Registrar on 17 December 2013 in the principal proceeding pursuant to the order of Byrne SJA of 27 November 2013.b.

The respondent is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of three years. 2.

The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis.3.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CONTEMPT, ATTACHMENT & SEQUESTRATION – CONTEMPT – DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDERS – BREACH OF UNDERTAKINGS TO THE COURT – where the applicant applied to have the respondent committed for contempt of court for breaching court orders and undertakings – where the respondent was the father of a pupil at the applicant school – where the alleged contempt involved the publication on numerous websites of articles and videos about the applicant – where the respondent admitted that the offending publications did occur – whether the respondent was responsible for the offending publications

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 900, r 925, r 926, r 930, r 931

Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98, cited
Bakir v Doueihi [2001] QSC 414, considered
Camm v ASI Development Company Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 317, considered
Chiltern District Council v Keane [1985] 1 WLR 619, cited
City Hall Albury Wodonga Pty Ltd & Ors v Chicago Investments Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] QSC 031, cited
Consolidated Press Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 325, considered
Davis’s Case (1461) 2 Dyer 188; 73 ER 415, cited
Evenco P/L v Aust Bldg Cons Employees & Builders Labourers Federation (Qld Branch) & Ors [2000] QCA 108, cited
Hinch v Attorney-General(Vict) (1987) 164 CLR 15, considered
Iberian Trust, Ltd v Founders Trust and Investment Co [1932] 2 KB 87, cited
Jennison v Baker [1972] 2 QB 52, considered
Madeira v Roggette Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 357, cited
Nexus Mortgage Securities Pty Ltd v Ecto Pty Ltd [1998] 4 VR 220, cited
Phonographic Performance Ltd v Amusement Caterers (Peckham) Ltd (1964) Ch 195, considered
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 at 578, cited
Stewart v Gymboree Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 307, cited

Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525, considered

COUNSEL:

A J H Morris QC for the applicant

D C…

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 Emmanuel College v Rowe

Details

AGLC: Emmanuel College v Rowe [2014] QSC 238
Case: [2014] QSC 238
Decision Date: 29 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Emmanuel College, a Catholic independent school, applied to have Mr. Rowe, the father of one of its students, committed for contempt of court. The dispute arose from Mr. Rowe's alleged breach of court orders and undertakings by publishing articles and videos about Emmanuel College on multiple websites. Mr. Rowe admitted to the publication of the material in question.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr. Rowe was responsible for the offending publications, and if so, whether he was in contempt of court. The court considered the nature and effect of the publications, the specific orders and undertakings given by Mr. Rowe, and whether those had been breached. The court also examined the principles of contempt of court and the appropriate remedy for such a breach.

The court found that Mr. Rowe was indeed responsible for the offending publications and that his actions amounted to a breach of the court's orders and undertakings. Consequently, the court held Mr. Rowe in contempt of court. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court orders and the duty of parties to avoid actions that could undermine the authority of the court. The court ordered Mr. Rowe to pay costs and directed him to refrain from making any further publications about Emmanuel College or its staff.

Orders