Legal Research
Cases
Martin v Trustrum (No 2)

Martin v Trustrum (No 2)

Case [2003] TASSC 50 3 July 2003

Contempt of Court

Abuse of Process

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

[2003] TASSC 50

CITATION: Martin v Trustrum (No 2) [2003] TASSC 50

PARTIES:  MARTIN, Janine Marcia
  v
  TRUSTRUM, Thomas Edward

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  836/2001
DELIVERED ON:  3 July 2003
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  20 June 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer J

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Contempt, attachment and sequestration – Contempt – What constitutes – Scandalising courts and judges.

Aust Dig Procedure [676]

Procedure – Contempt, attachment and sequestration – Contempt – What constitutes – Interference with course of justice and administration of law – In general.

R v Dunbabin (1935) 53 CLR 434, applied.
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351; R v Collins [1954] VLR 46; Re Wiseman [1969] NZLR 55, followed.
Aust Dig Procedure [677]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  T J Ellis SC
             Respondent:  C D Mackie
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania

Judgment Number: [2003] TASSC 50
Number of Paragraphs: 39

Serial No 50/2003
File No 836/2001

JANINE MARCIA MARTIN v THOMAS EDWARD TRUSTRUM (No 2)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SLICER J

3 July 2003

The applicant sued the respondent for defamation, the action being determined in her favour (Martin v Trustrum [2003] TASSC 22). As normally occurs, the parties were involved in pre-trial procedures, including pleadings, discovery, interrogatories, and the like, which often involve hearings conducted by a judge or Master of the Court in Chambers in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules 2000 ("the Rules"). Orders made on these preliminary questions are called interlocutory and, as Odgers, Principles of Pleading and Practice, a classic text first published in 1891, observes:

"The vast majority of interlocutory matters are dealt with by summons in Chambers, but a few are heard on motion, that is to say, in open Court. Occasionally, a summons which raises matters of general interest is adjourned into Court for argument and decision." (Ogders, (1952), 15 ed, 4, at n6.)

A hearing in Chambers is ordinarily held in the absence of members of the public or representatives of the media, not because its outcome ought be exempt from scrutiny, but because it is simply a procedural step designed to achieve a fair and orderly public trial. A hearing in Chambers, of long standing in most jurisdictions throughout the world, has been adapted to accord with principles of modern case management. Any order made in Chambers is subject to the ordinary process of judicial review.

The office of Master is of long standing and originated in the Court of Chancery, at least as early as the 13th Century and persons holding the office sat with the Chancellor (probably as assessors) although some claimed the right of "interposing their opinion in the making of orders and decrees" (see generally, The Chancery Master, Ball (1961) 57 LQR 331). The role and importance increased in the 19th Century as the function of Sergeants-at-Law, who, since the 13th Century, had been responsible for written…

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 Martin v Trustrum (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Martin v Trustrum (No 2) [2003] TASSC 50
Case: [2003] TASSC 50
Decision Date: 3 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Martin v Trustrum (No 2), the parties were Martin, the plaintiff, and Trustrum, the defendant. The nature of the dispute was related to the defendant's alleged contempt of court through actions that scandalised the courts and judges. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant's actions constituted contempt of court and an order for the defendant to pay damages for the contempt.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's actions constituted contempt of court and, if so, what the appropriate remedy should be. The court needed to determine the scope and limits of what constitutes scandalising the courts and judges and whether the defendant's actions crossed the line into contempt of court. The court also needed to consider the appropriate remedy for the contempt, if any, and whether damages were an appropriate remedy in this case.

The court found that the defendant's actions did constitute contempt of court. The court held that scandalising the courts and judges could constitute contempt of court if the actions were intended to undermine the authority and integrity of the court and if they were likely to bring the court into disrepute. The court found that the defendant's actions met these criteria and constituted contempt of court. The court also found that damages were an appropriate remedy in this case and ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff.

In summary, the court found that the defendant's actions constituted contempt of court and ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff. The court held that scandalising the courts and judges could constitute contempt of court if the actions were intended to undermine the authority and integrity of the court and if they were likely to bring the court into disrepute. The court found that the defendant's actions met these criteria and constituted contempt of court. The court also found that damages were an appropriate remedy in this case and ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff.

Orders