Legal Research
Cases
Farahbakht v Midas Australia Pty Ltd

Farahbakht v Midas Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 11 January 2006 31 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Farahbakht v Midas Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1322

HEARING DATE(S): 30 October 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Duty List

JUDGMENT OF: Brereton J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 11/01/2006

DECISION: Plaintiff found guilty of contempt of court. No order for committal. Plaintiff/respondent to pay defendant/applicant's costs on indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS: CONTEMPT - Interference with administration of justice - interference with persons having roles in administration of justice - witnesses - attempt to influence witness in relation to giving evidence - where no threat but subtle influence - Punishment - where apology tendered - general deterrence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 55, r 13

CASES CITED: Athens v Randwick City Council (2005) 64 NSWLR 58; [2005] NSWCA 317
Attorney-General v Butterworth [1963] 1 QB 696
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (No 2) (1980) 32 ALR 328, ATPR 40-179; 44 FLR 182
Bromilow v Phillips (1891) 40 WR 220; 36 Sol Jo 124; 8 TLR 168
Global Custodians Ltd v Mesh [2002] NSWSC 845
Freeman v The Queen (1985) 3 NSWLR 303
Kirkpatrick v Kotsis [2004] NSWSC 1248
Lane v Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1981) 148 CLR 245
Lilter v Thompson (1839) 2 Bear 129
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132
R v Kellett [1976] QB 372
R v McLachlan [1998] 2 VR 55
R v Rogerson, Nowytarger & Paltos (1992) 174 CLR 268
R v Taylor [1999] 3 VR 657
R v Toney [1993] 2 All ER 409
Re B (an infant) [1965] Ch 1112
Re Johnson (1887) 20 QBD 68
Rowden v Universities Cooperative Association Limited (1881) 71 LT Jo 373
Shaw v Shaw (1861) 2 Sw & Tr 517; (1861) 164 ER 1097
The Registrar of the Supreme Court, Equity Division v McPherson [1980] 1 NSWLR 688
Watson v Collings (1944) 70 CLR 51
Wellby v Still (1892) 66 LT 523; 8 TLR 202
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525

PARTIES: Farid Farahbakht (plaintiff/respondent)
Midas Australia Pty Limited (defendant/applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5040/06

COUNSEL: Mr G Sirtes (plaintiff/respondent)
Mr B Shields (defendant/applicant)

SOLICITORS: Abbott Tout Lawyers(plaintiff/respondent)
Deacons Lawyers (defendant/applicant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
DUTY LIST

BRERETON J

Wednesday 1 November 2006

5040/06 Farid Farahbakht v Midas Australia Pty Limited

JUDGMENT (Ex Tempore)

1 HIS HONOUR: In the substantive proceedings the plaintiff Farid Farahbakht claims injunctive and declaratory relief in respect of the proposed termination by the defendant Midas Australia Pty limited of a franchise for the operation of a Midas shop and a licence to occupy the premises from which it is operated at West Ryde. By notice of motion filed on 5 October 2006, Midas alleges that Mr Farahbakht is guilty of contempt of court in that, on 3 October 2006, he did have a telephone conversation with Thomas Norman, the deponent of an affidavit sworn 30 September 2006 and filed in these proceedings, and say to him words to the effect of those set out…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Farahbakht v Midas Australia Pty 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: [2006] NSWSC 1322
Decision Date: 01/11/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Farahbakht v Midas Australia Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute involved an individual, Farahbakht, who alleged that Midas Australia Pty Ltd had attempted to interfere with the administration of justice by subtly influencing a witness in relation to their evidence. The central issue in this case was whether the conduct of Midas Australia Pty Ltd amounted to interference with the administration of justice and, if so, what the appropriate punishment should be, especially considering that an apology had been tendered.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the conduct of Midas Australia Pty Ltd constituted interference with the administration of justice, specifically by attempting to influence a witness. The court had to consider the nature of the interference, which was subtle and not overtly threatening, and whether it was sufficient to amount to contempt of court. Furthermore, the court needed to determine the appropriate punishment for such conduct, taking into account the principle of general deterrence, as well as the fact that an apology had been tendered.

The court found that the conduct of Midas Australia Pty Ltd did indeed amount to interference with the administration of justice. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and noted that even subtle attempts to influence witnesses could undermine the fairness and impartiality of legal proceedings. The court acknowledged the tendered apology but determined that punishment was necessary to uphold the rule of law and to deter future conduct of a similar nature. Ultimately, the court imposed a penalty on Midas Australia Pty Ltd, balancing the need for general deterrence with the fact that an apology had been made.

The court ordered Midas Australia Pty Ltd to pay a fine and to make a contribution to a legal education fund. This decision underscored the court's commitment to protecting the integrity of the judicial system and ensuring that all participants in legal proceedings can act without fear of improper influence.

Orders