Mazi v Kao (No 1) (Contempt Ruling) - [2025] VSC 575

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2024 05284

GRACE MAZI	Applicant
v
SPENSER HSIUNG-PIN KAO & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Respondents

---

JUDGE:	Finanzio J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 March 2025
DATE OF RULING:	7 October 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Mazi v Kao (No 1) (Contempt Ruling)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 575

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Alleged breach of r 28.05 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) – Where r 28.05 concerns inspection of documents and covers persons not party to a proceeding – Where no evidence that documents in question accessed under r 28.05 – Where reasonable inference that fourth respondent came into possession of documents as a party representative – Where documents not covered by order of Court that they remain confidential – No breach found – Summons dismissed.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure of documents in separate but related proceedings – Where contempt allegations made against first respondent and others – Harman undertaking raised – Whether affidavit subject to the implied undertaking in Hearne v Street – Whether breach of implied undertaking – Where documents not of the character that would attract implied undertaking – Where affidavit filed voluntarily, not under court compulsion – Affidavit not subject to implied undertaking – Contempt not made out – Summons dismissed.

Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280; Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125; Davey v Silverstein [2019] VSC 724; Yap v Lee (No 2) [2024] VSC 730.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Allegation that confidential documents used in false and misleading way – Where information contained in documents not confidential in relevant sense – Where emails attaching documents set out basis for settlement of proceedings – Where nothing inappropriate or prohibited in such an offer being made – Where content may be matter of dispute but no basis for contempt – Summons dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For the 1^st & 2^nd Respondents	Ms M Hardinge	MMR Lawyers
For the 3^rd & 4^th Respondents	Mr M Thomas	Carter Newell Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 9 December 2024, Ms Grace Mazi (‘Applicant’) filed a summons in Proceeding No. S ECI 2024 05284 of this Court (‘Bygrave Appeal’), charging Spenser Hsiung-Pin Kao and Hung-Hsia Kao (respectively the ‘First Respondent’ and the ‘Second Respondent’) with contempt of court (‘contempt application’). The Applicant alleges that the First and Second Respondents, or their agents, used documents filed in the Bygrave Appeal in breach of the implied undertaking not to use them for a collateral or ulterior purpose (commonly referred to as the Harman undertaking or obligation)[1] by disclosing those documents and using them in separate proceedings for an impermissible purpose.
[1]Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280.

The Bygrave Appeal…

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 Mazi v Kao (No 1) (Contempt Ruling) 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: [2025] VSC 575
Decision Date: 7 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Mazi v Kao (No 1) (Contempt Ruling), the applicant sought to hold the respondents in contempt of court for alleged breaches of confidentiality orders. The application was dismissed by the court, which found that the respondents had not breached the orders in question. The case involved allegations that confidential documents had been accessed and used in a misleading manner, in contravention of specific court orders.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondents had breached the confidentiality orders by accessing and using certain documents in a way that was misleading and whether an affidavit filed by one of the respondents breached an implied undertaking of confidentiality. The court examined the nature of the documents in question, the circumstances in which they were accessed, and the content of the affidavit to determine if any contempt had occurred.

The court found that there was no evidence the documents had been accessed in breach of the confidentiality orders. It was reasonable to infer that the fourth respondent had come into possession of the documents as a party representative, and there was no evidence they had been improperly disclosed. Furthermore, the court held that the documents were not of a confidential nature that would attract an implied undertaking of confidentiality, and the affidavit was not subject to such an undertaking as it was filed voluntarily, not under court compulsion. As a result, the court dismissed the summons, finding no contempt had been established.

The final orders of the court dismissed the summons and directed the applicant to pay the costs of the respondents.

Orders