Fu v Cha [No 4]

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   FU -v- CHA [No 4] [2020] WASC 292
CORAM:   LE MIERE J
HEARD:   24 JULY 2020
DELIVERED          :   24 JULY 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2650 of 2014
BETWEEN:   HONG FU
First Plaintiff

AHYEONG JEONG
Second Plaintiff

HANDS ON COMPUTER TRAINING INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD T/AS THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Third Plaintiff

AND

BYOUNG JU CHA
Second Defendant

VOON MEI NG
Third Defendant

HAROLD KONRAD SIMON LEE
Fourth Defendant

Catchwords:

Contempt of court - Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) - Order 55 r 7 - Penalty to be imposed on contemnor - Contemnor to pay the costs of the contempt application on an indemnity basis - No further punishment imposed

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

The second defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of the plaintiffs' contempt application

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	In person
Second Plaintiff	:	In person
Third Plaintiff	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	Mr M R Gunning
Third Defendant	:	In person
Fourth Defendant	:	In person

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	In person
Second Plaintiff	:	In person
Third Plaintiff	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	Gunning Young
Third Defendant	:	In person
Fourth Defendant	:	In person

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

Fu v Winstar Group Pty Ltd [No 3] [2020] WASC 222

LE MIERE J:

On 24 July 2020, I delivered ex tempore reasons for ordering that the second defendant, Mr Cha, pay the plaintiffs' costs of the plaintiffs' application that Mr Cha be held in contempt, except insofar as the costs are of an unreasonable amount or were unreasonably incurred. I imposed no further punishment. This is an edited version of those reasons.
The plaintiff moved by chamber summons of 3 August 2016 that Mr Cha be committed for contempt of court for breaching orders of the court made on 19 December 2014, which I will refer to as the injunction orders.
On 17 June 2020, I found Mr Cha guilty of contempt. See Fu v Winstar Group Pty Ltd [No 3] [2020] WASC 222. On 24 July 2020, I heard submissions concerning the penalty to be imposed on Mr Cha. These reasons should be read together with my reasons published as Fu v Winstar [No 3] 2020 WASC 222.
Order 55 r 7 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) provides that a court may punish contempt of court by committing the contemnor to prison or by imposing a fine or both. Generally, imprisonment is a punishment of last resort. The imposition of a fine is a more common punishment. It is not necessary in all cases to impose a punishment.
I will order Mr Cha to pay the costs of the plaintiffs in bringing the contempt proceeding. Contempt proceedings follow the usual rule in civil proceedings that costs follow the event. Indemnity cost orders are commonly made in contempt proceedings, the rationale being that an applicant who successfully…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fu v Cha [No 4] involved a dispute between the parties concerning the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the contemnor, Mr Cha, for a contempt of court. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The court had to decide the appropriate penalty to impose on Mr Cha for his contempt of court and whether any further punishment should be imposed beyond ordering him to pay the costs of the contempt application on an indemnity basis.

The court was required to determine whether the penalty of ordering Mr Cha to pay the costs of the contempt application on an indemnity basis was sufficient, or whether any further punishment should be imposed. The court considered the nature and gravity of the contempt, as well as any relevant precedents and guidelines. The court also took into account the contemnor's previous conduct and the potential impact of any further punishment on him.

The court found that the penalty of ordering Mr Cha to pay the costs of the contempt application on an indemnity basis was sufficient, and no further punishment should be imposed. The court considered that the contemnor had already suffered significant consequences as a result of his contempt, including the payment of substantial legal costs and the potential impact on his reputation. The court also noted that the contemnor had shown remorse and had taken steps to address the underlying issues that led to the contempt. The court held that the penalty imposed was appropriate and proportionate to the seriousness of the contempt.

The court made an order that Mr Cha pay the costs of the contempt application on an indemnity basis, and no further punishment was imposed. The court noted that the contemnor had already suffered significant consequences as a result of his contempt, and that any further punishment would be disproportionate. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the court and the need to deter future contempts, but also recognised the need to balance this with the need for proportionality and fairness in the imposition of penalties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established