Legal Research
Cases
Liristis v Corrective Services NSW (No 4)

Liristis v Corrective Services NSW (No 4)

Link copied

Case Copied 28 February 2020 23 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Liristis v Corrective Services NSW (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 147
Hearing dates: 14 May 2019
Date of orders: 28 February 2020
Decision date: 28 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) The proceeding be summarily dismissed;
(2) The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the proceedings.
Catchwords:
CONTEMPT – conduct said to be calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due administration of justice – application by defendants to dismiss summarily – principles discussed – allegation and proceedings “hopeless” – proceedings dismissed
PRACTICE and PROCEDURE – summary dismissal – contempt – principles discussed – exception to interfere in proceedings for contempt by summary dismissal – exception warranted – proceedings “hopeless” and commenced irregularly
Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 55
Cases Cited: Ali v Collection Point Pty Ltd (2010) 274 ALR 618; [2010] FCA 1066
ASIC v Sigalla [2010] NSWSC 606
Clarkson v Mandarin Club Limited (1998) 90 FCR 354; [1998] FCA 1685
Commissioner of Corrective Services v Liristis (2018) 98 NSWLR 113; [2018] NSWCA 143
Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union v Grocon Constructors (Victoria) Pty Ltd & Ors; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd & Ors (2014) 47 VR 527; [2014] VSCA 261
Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573; [1953] HCA 48
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1
Farahbakht v Midas Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1322
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69
Henri Walter Aram v The Owners Strata Plan No 20175 [2012] NSWSC 1273
King v Healthcare Complaints Commission [2011] NSWCA 353
Kostov v YPOL Pty Ltd (2018) 19 NSWLR 1002; [2018] NSWCA 306
Mahaffy v Mahaffy [2013] NSWSC 245
Markisic (Oliver) v The Commonwealth [2006] NSWCA 150
Matthews v ASIC [2009] NSWCA 155
Midland Metals Overseas v Australian Cablemakers Association (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1128
O’Connor v Hough [2016] 2 Qd R 543; [2016] QSC 4
Patsalis v State of New South Wales (2012) 81 NSWLR 742; [2012] NSWCA 307
R v Metal Trades Employers’ Association; Ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union (1951) 82 CLR 208; [1951] HCA 3
Raymond v Honey [1983] 1 AC 1
Skouvakis v Skouvakis [1976] 2 NSWLR 29
Taylor v Ribby Hall Leisure Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 400
U & I Global (Australia) Pty Ltd v Tasman-Warajay Pty Ltd (1995) 60 FCR 26; [1995] FCA 794
Ulman v Live Group Pty Ltd (2018) 367 ALR 95; [2018] NSWCA 338
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525; [1995] HCA 3
Zomojo Pty Ltd v Hurd (No 5) [2014] FCA 537
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Tony Liristis (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Corrective Services NSW (First Defendant/Applicant)
State of New South Wales (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
No appearance (Plaintiff)
P Herzfeld (Defendants)
Solicitors:
No appearance (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (NSW) (Defendants)

File Number(s):

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 Liristis v Corrective Services NSW (No 4) 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: [2020] NSWSC 147
Decision Date: 28 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Liristis v Corrective Services NSW (No 4) involved the applicant seeking summary dismissal of proceedings for contempt of court. The applicant argued that the proceedings were hopeless and had been commenced irregularly, warranting dismissal. The proceedings arose from an allegation that the applicant had engaged in conduct calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due administration of justice. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included whether the proceedings for contempt of court were hopeless, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to summarily dismiss them. The applicant contended that the proceedings were based on a misinterpretation of the law and had no reasonable prospect of success. The court was required to balance the applicant's right to a fair hearing against the need to protect the administration of justice.

In determining the application, the court considered the principles governing summary dismissal in contempt proceedings. The court noted that summary dismissal was an exception to the general rule that contempt proceedings should proceed to a hearing. However, in exceptional circumstances, where the proceedings were hopeless and had been commenced irregularly, summary dismissal might be warranted. In this case, the court found that the applicant's argument had merit, and the proceedings were indeed hopeless. The court held that the proceedings for contempt of court were dismissed, and the applicant's application for summary dismissal was granted.

Orders