Frigger v Stephenson - [2022] WADC 93

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   FRIGGER -v- STEPHENSON [2022] WADC 93
CORAM:   RUSSELL DCJ
HEARD:   6 OCTOBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   7 OCTOBER 2022
PUBLISHED           :   28 OCTOBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   CIVO 122 of 2022
BETWEEN:   ANGELA CECILIA THERESA FRIGGER
Applicant
AND
TIMOTHY RICHARD STEPHENSON
First Defendant
DAVID ABRAHAM LENHOFF
Second Defendant
CAMERON VICTOR EASTWOOD
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Contempt of court - Jurisdiction of District Court to punish for contempt of court - Application to remit proceeding to the Supreme Court

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 8(1)(c), s 50, s 63, s 77
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 16 r 1(1), O 55 r 5

Result:

Proceeding and defendants' applications in the proceeding remitted to the Supreme Court

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In person
First Defendant	:	Mr M D Cuerden SC
Second Defendant	:	In person
Third Defendant	:	Mr B A Jackson

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	In person
First Defendant	:	Barry Nilsson Lawyers (WA)
Second Defendant	:	Lenhoff & Hotz
Third Defendant	:	Holborn Lenhoff Massey

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Chianti Pty Ltd v Leume Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 270; (2007) 35 WAR 488
Commercial Developments Pty Ltd (t/as Don Rogers Motors Pty Ltd) v Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Workers' Compensation Ltd) (1991) 5 WAR 208
Cullen v The Queen (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 6450, 25 September 1986)
Frigger v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 3] [2014] WASCA 69
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351
R v Pismiris (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 6521, 18 November 1986)
Trimble v Piggott (1995) 14 WAR 329

RUSSELL DCJ:

[This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 7 October 2022 and edited from the transcript to correct matters of grammar and to include complete references.]

Overview

On 6 October 2022, I heard submissions from the parties as to whether this proceeding should be remitted to the Supreme Court under s 77 of the District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA) (District Court Act). I now deliver my reserved decision.
By ex parte notice of motion dated 8 July 2022 and filed on 13 July 2022, the applicant, Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger, sought to move the court for orders that Timothy Richard Stephenson, David Abraham Lenhoff and Cameron Victor Eastwood now joined and named as the first, second and third defendants respectively, be committed to prison for contempt of court, or alternatively, that each of them be fined for contempt of court.
Mrs Frigger is referred to as the applicant and plaintiff in the various documents filed by the parties in this proceeding. I will refer to her in these reasons with no disrespect, by her name, Mrs Frigger. I will refer to each of the defendants by their name, or together as the defendants.
The notice of motion also seeks an order that each of the defendants be restrained from interfering, communicating, telephoning, emailing, meeting and/or discussing this proceeding…

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 Frigger v Stephenson

Details

AGLC: Frigger v Stephenson [2022] WADC 93
Case: [2022] WADC 93
Decision Date: 28 OCTOBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Frigger v Stephenson, the appellant, Mr Frigger, sought to have a contempt proceeding against him remitted from the District Court to the Supreme Court. The appellant was charged with two counts of contempt of court for statements he made on social media that were allegedly defamatory of a witness in a separate proceeding. The appellant argued that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the contempt proceeding and sought to have the matter transferred to the Supreme Court. The District Court dismissed the application to remit the proceeding, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

The legal issue before the court was whether the District Court had jurisdiction to hear a contempt proceeding against the appellant. The appellant contended that the Supreme Court had exclusive jurisdiction over contempt matters, and that the District Court could not exercise jurisdiction over the proceeding. The respondent, Mr Stephenson, submitted that the District Court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court to hear contempt proceedings, and that the appellant's application to remit the proceeding should be dismissed.

The court found that the District Court did have jurisdiction to hear the contempt proceeding against the appellant. The court noted that while the Supreme Court had exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, such as appeals from the District Court, it did not have exclusive jurisdiction over all contempt matters. The court held that the District Court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court to hear contempt proceedings, and that the appellant's application to remit the proceeding was therefore without merit. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders in relation to the appeal. The contempt proceeding against the appellant remained before the District Court.

Orders