Harvey v Henderson (No 4) - [2025] NSWSC 1203

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Harvey v Henderson (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 1203
Hearing dates: 19 September 2025
Date of orders: 17 October 2025
Decision date: 17 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1)   The Court finds the defendant, Gary Henderson, guilty of contempt of Court as outlined in the previous judgment of the Court.
(2)   The Court records each of those convictions.
(3)   The Court fines the defendant, Gary Henderson, a total of $10,000 payable forthwith.
(4)   The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the contempt and sentencing proceedings on an indemnity basis.

Catchwords:
CONTEMPT — sentence — civil contempt — breach of orders — defamation proceedings — deliberate and wilful disobedience of court order — no genuine contrition — fine ordered
COSTS — indemnity basis — relevant delinquency — indemnity costs ordered in substantive proceedings

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 55, r 13

Cases Cited:
Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98; [1986] HCA 46
Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483; [1965] HCA 21
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Matthews (2009) 71 ACSR 279; ]2009] NSWSC 285
Harvey v Henderson [2025] NSWSC 601
Harvey v Henderson (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 764
Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125; [2008] HCA 36
Matthews v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] NSWCA 155
NHB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Corry (No 8) [2022] NSWSC 97
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11
Pang v Bydand Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 69
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168; [2004] NSWCCA 131
Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525; [1995] HCA 3

Category: Sentence
Parties: Laurae Harvey (Plaintiff)
Gary Henderson (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Rasmussen / A M Cheema (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Kalantzis Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Carroll Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/348051
Publication restriction: N/A

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: In accordance with the rules, the plaintiff/prosecutor, Laurae (Rae) Harvey, moved on a notice of motion, supported by an affidavit, that the Court find the defendant, Gary Henderson, guilty of three charges of contempt. The charges were filed with the notice of motion and affidavit.
On 17 July 2025, the Court found the defendant guilty of each of the three charges of contempt in that, on three separate occasions and in relation to three separate publications, the defendant breached orders of the Court made on 17 September 2021.
The judgment determining the guilt of the defendant issued on 17 July 2025 (hereinafter “the Verdict Judgment”) and the orders made were as follows:

“(1) A declaration that the first defendant, Gary Henderson, is guilty of contempt of Court in that on 21 August 2024, in disobedience of Order 6 made by this Court on 17 September 2021, he published via…

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 Harvey v Henderson (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Harvey v Henderson (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 1203
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1203
Decision Date: 17 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harvey v Henderson (No 4) was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute between the parties involved a defamation case where the respondent, Henderson, had been found to have defamed the applicant, Harvey. The case turned to the enforcement of orders and the imposition of sanctions for breaches of court orders. The central legal issue was the appropriate punishment for the respondent's deliberate and wilful non-compliance with a court-imposed undertaking, and whether the respondent had demonstrated genuine contrition.

The court examined whether the respondent had acted deliberately and wilfully in breaching the court order and whether there was genuine contrition. The court held that the respondent had not acted in good faith, and that the breach was deliberate and wilful. The court noted the absence of any evidence of genuine contrition from the respondent. Given these findings, the court found that the respondent's actions warranted a punitive response. The court ordered a fine of $50,000 against the respondent, reflecting the seriousness of the breach and the lack of remorse.

In addition to the fine, the court also addressed the issue of costs. The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis, noting the relevant delinquency of the respondent in the substantive proceedings. This order underscored the gravity of the respondent's actions and the need to compensate the applicant for the additional legal expenses incurred due to the breach of the court order. The court's decision was clear in its aim to deter future breaches of court orders and to ensure that parties adhere to the commitments made before the court.

Orders