Metcash Trading Limited v Bunn (No 6)

In Metcash Trading Limited v Bunn (No 6), the plaintiff, Metcash Trading Limited, sought enforcement of a court order against the defendant, Mr Bunn. The dispute centred on Mr Bunn's alleged contempt of court for publishing content that violated a prior court injunction. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue was whether Mr Bunn had indeed breached the court order and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The court had to consider the extent of the contempt, the impact on the administration of justice, and Mr Bunn's financial circumstances.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that Mr Bunn had violated the injunction by publishing content that discussed Metcash's actions and statements. Despite Mr Bunn's animus towards Metcash, the court determined that he understood the implications of the court order and the consequences of breaching it again. Given these factors, the court deemed a fine of $2,000 appropriate, reflecting the relative gravity of the contempt. Additionally, Metcash sought an order for costs on an indemnity basis, payable forthwith. The court acknowledged that while the power to award costs is discretionary, it is common practice to order the contemnor to pay costs on an indemnity basis. However, the court noted that there is no general principle mandating this in contempt cases. The court considered the imposed fine and decided to order Mr Bunn to pay Metcash's costs of the motion, to be taxed and payable immediately.

In conclusion, the court found Mr Bunn guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of $2,000. Additionally, it ordered Mr Bunn to pay Metcash's costs of the motion on an indemnity basis, to be taxed and payable forthwith.