Mahaffy v Mahaffy

The appeal concerned alleged contempt of court by the appellant, Mr Mahaffy, in relation to various orders made by the primary judge. The proceedings involved allegations of disobedience of court orders, failure to comply with a subpoena, and contempt by scandalising the court. The court was required to determine whether the appellant had committed contempt of court in relation to these matters.

The legal issues before the court included whether the orders allegedly breached were sufficiently unambiguous, whether the non-compliance was wilful, and whether the appellant had acted to structure his financial affairs to avoid enforcement of orders. The court also considered the principles relating to contempt by scandalising the court, including the balance between the right to criticise and the need to protect the administration of justice. Furthermore, the court examined whether the appellant's failure to give evidence could be used in determining guilt, particularly where relevant facts were peculiarly within his knowledge, and whether a sole director could be held liable for a company's failure to comply with a costs order.

The court reasoned that for disobedience of a court order to constitute contempt, the order must be clear and unambiguous, and the disobedience must be wilful, not accidental or unintentional. In relation to contempt by scandalising the court, the court emphasised the need to protect the administration of justice while acknowledging the right to criticise. The court found that some of the convictions were not supported by the evidence, particularly where the alleged breaches were not clearly established as wilful or where the orders themselves lacked the necessary clarity. The court also considered the specific circumstances of the company's financial position in relation to the costs order.

The appeal against conviction was allowed in part, with convictions on counts 1, 5, 6, 8, and 13 being set aside. The appeal against sentence was allowed, with the original sentence being set aside and a new sentence of 4 months imprisonment imposed, commencing on 18 December 2015. The costs order made by the primary judge for the trial was also set aside, with each party ordered to pay their own costs of the trial and the appeal.