Legal Research
Cases
Express Cargo Services Pty Ltd v Mysko

Express Cargo Services Pty Ltd v Mysko

Case [2025] SASC 149 11 September 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
EXPRESS CARGO SERVICES PTY LTD v MYSKO
[2025] SASC 149
Decision of the Honourable Justice B Doyle
COURTS AND JUDGES - CONTEMPT - PARTICULAR CONTEMPTS - DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDERS OF COURT - INJUNCTIONS
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - NON-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT - BREACH OF CONDITIONS OF SUSPENSION AND SENTENCE FOLLOWING BREACH
COURTS AND JUDGES - CONTEMPT - PUNISHMENT AND ENFORCEMENT - PUNISHMENT - ORDER - NATURE OF PUNISHMENT - IMPRISONMENT
On 17 May 2023, the respondent was found to have committed two acts of contempt of court consisting, generally, of the respondent disobeying the terms of injunctions enjoining her both from disclosing information gathered by the respondent in the course of her former employment by the applicant and from disparaging the applicant to its principal clients.
On 28 August 2024, the respondent was committed to a correctional institution for a term of four weeks but the term was suspended subject to the respondent giving certain further undertakings to the Court.
On 2 April 2025, the applicant filed an interlocutory application seeking both the cancelation of the suspended term and that the Court impose the term of committal to a correctional institution for a period of four weeks upon the respondent, on the basis that the respondent had allegedly breached her further undertakings to the Court. The applicant also sought its costs of the contempt proceedings on an indemnity basis.
Held, setting aside the order suspending the commitment of the respondent to a term of imprisonment of four weeks and ordering the committal of the respondent to a correctional institution for a period of four weeks, but partially suspending that term in respect of two weeks on terms that she comply, for a period of one year, with the undertakings previously given:
1.it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent contravened the terms of the undertakings on numerous occasions and that the respondent had no lawful justification or excuse;
2.the order wholly suspending the commitment of the respondent to a term of imprisonment of four weeks is set aside;
3.the respondent is to be committed to a correctional institution for a term of four weeks, two weeks of which term is suspended, subject to the respondent’s compliance for a period of one year following her release with the undertakings given;
4.the respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs in respect of the proceeding on an indemnity basis.

Heavy Vehicle National Law (South Australia) Act 2013 (SA); Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA) s 104; Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), referred to.
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Grocon Constructors (Vic) Pty Ltd (2014) 47 VR 527; Cornelius v R (1936) 55 CLR 235; Crafter v Webster (1980) 23 SASR 321; Express Cargo Services Pty Ltd v Mysko [2023] SASC 11; Express Cargo Services Pty Ltd v Mysko [2024] SASC 112; Gunton v Jackman [1981] Tas R 369; Koulouris…

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 Express Cargo Services Pty Ltd v Mysko

Details

AGLC: Express Cargo Services Pty Ltd v Mysko [2025] SASC 149
Case: [2025] SASC 149
Decision Date: 11 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Express Cargo Services Pty Ltd v Mysko involved a dispute concerning contempt of court, specifically disobedience of a court order, and the breach of a suspended sentence of imprisonment. The respondent, Mysko, was the subject of a proceeding for contempt of court initiated by Express Cargo Services Pty Ltd, the appellant. The court was required to determine whether the respondent's actions constituted contempt and to decide on an appropriate punishment.

The court had to address whether the respondent's failure to comply with a court-imposed injunction amounted to contempt. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the respondent's breach of the conditions of a suspended sentence of imprisonment warranted further sanctions, including imprisonment. The primary legal issue was whether the respondent's actions constituted contempt and if so, what the appropriate punishment should be.

The court found that the respondent's actions did amount to contempt of court due to his failure to comply with the injunction and his breach of the suspended sentence conditions. The court reasoned that the respondent's conduct demonstrated a disregard for the court's authority and its orders. Consequently, the court determined that the respondent should be imprisoned for a specified period as punishment for his contempt and the breach of the suspended sentence. The court's decision emphasized the importance of upholding the authority of the court and ensuring compliance with its orders.

The court ordered that the respondent be imprisoned for a period of two months. The court's decision underscored the need to enforce the rule of law and maintain the integrity of the judicial system. The respondent's imprisonment was intended to serve as a deterrent and to reinforce the seriousness of disobeying court orders and breaching the terms of a suspended sentence.

Orders