Legal Research
Cases
Live Group Pty Ltd v Rabbi Ulman

Live Group Pty Ltd v Rabbi Ulman

Link copied

Case Copied 29 March 2018 60 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Live Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Rabbi Ulman and Ors [2018] NSWSC 393
Hearing dates: 19 March 2018
Decision date: 29 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity - Expedition List
Before: Sackar J
Decision:
See paras [172] and [175]

Catchwords:
CONTEMPT – contempt of court – improper pressure – interference with the administration of justice as a continuing process – appropriate penalty for contempt
COSTS – costs to be awarded on an indemnity or ordinary basis
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Act 2002 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Admark Property Group Pty Ltd (in liq) v GJ Building and Contracting Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 118
Attorney-General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 1 NSWLR 362
Attorney-General (NSW) v Whiley (1993) 31 NSWLR 314
Attorney-General v Butterworth [1963] 1 Q B 696
Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440
Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing Plc [1988] Ch 333
Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] FCA 254
Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Matthews [2009] NSWSC 285
Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd v CAN 134 468 205 (formerly Clipso Electrical Pty Ltd) (No 5) [2017] FCA 1584
Commercial Bank of Australia v Preston [1981] 2 NSWLR 554
Commission for Fair Trading v Rixon (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1279
Commonwealth of Australia v Gretton [2008] NSWCA 117
Connolly v Dale [1996] QB 120
Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573
Crane Distribution Ltd v Van Schellebeeck [2009] NSWSC 263
Gunns Ltd v Alisah [2009] TASSC 103
Hadchiti v R [2016] NSWCCA 63
Hills v Ellis [1983] QB 680
Hinch v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria (No 2) (1987) 164 CLR 15
In re Johnson (1887) 20 QBD 68, 74
Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111
Live Group Pty Ltd and Anor v Rabbi Ulman and Ors [2017] NSWSC 1759
Matthews v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] NSWCA 155
McCabe v British American Tobacco [2002] VSC 73
McIntyre v Perkes (1988) 15 NSWLR 417
Menzies v Paccar Financial Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 280
Mirus Australia Pty Ltd v Gage [2017] NSWSC 1046
Mirus Australia Pty Ltd v Gage [2018] NSWSC 35
Morris v Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114
NCR Australia Pty Ltd v Credit Connection Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1118
NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285
Paccar Financial Pty Limited v Ian Menzies & Colleen Menzies (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1622
Pang v Bydand Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 69
Principal Registrar of Supreme Court (NSW) v Tran [2006] NSWSC 1183
R v Kellett [1976] Q B 372
R v Moloney [1985] AC 905
R v Ruttley (No 7) [2017] NSWC 1582
R v Thompson; R v…

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 Live Group Pty Ltd v Rabbi Ulman 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: [2018] NSWSC 393
Decision Date: 29 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Live Group Pty Ltd v Rabbi Ulman, the dispute arose from allegations of contempt of court and improper pressure, which interfered with the administration of justice as an ongoing process. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Live Group Pty Ltd, sought an appropriate penalty for contempt against the defendant, Rabbi Ulman, who was accused of exerting improper pressure and attempting to interfere with the judicial process.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Rabbi Ulman's conduct amounted to contempt of court and, if so, what the appropriate penalty should be. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the costs associated with the case should be awarded on an indemnity or ordinary basis. The court's decision hinged on interpreting the nature and extent of Rabbi Ulman's actions, their impact on the administration of justice, and the principles governing the imposition of penalties and costs in contempt cases.

The court found that Rabbi Ulman's actions constituted contempt of court by exerting improper pressure and attempting to interfere with the judicial process. The court held that the nature of the interference was serious and warranted a penalty that would serve as a deterrent and maintain the integrity of the judicial system. In determining the appropriate penalty, the court considered various factors, including the gravity of the contempt, the need for deterrence, and the specific circumstances of the case. After careful deliberation, the court imposed a penalty that it deemed suitable to address the contempt while also ensuring that the administration of justice was upheld. Regarding the costs, the court awarded them on an indemnity basis, reflecting the seriousness of the contempt and the need to compensate the plaintiff adequately for the legal proceedings.

Orders