Michelmore v Brown [No 5] - [2025] WASC 152

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   MICHELMORE -v- BROWN [No 5] [2025] WASC 152
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
HEARD:   22 APRIL 2025
DELIVERED          :   22 APRIL 2025
PUBLISHED           :   2 MAY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2457 of 2023
BETWEEN:   LAURA JANE MICHELMORE
Plaintiff
AND
ADAM SYDNEY BROWN
First Defendant
JERALD GLEASON MARTIN
First Second Defendant
EMMA HAZEL MARTIN
Second Second Defendant
EMERSION PTY LTD as trustee for THE MARTIN TRUST
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Contempt - Contravening court order - Authority of the court - Pseudo-law - Legal systems

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Applications granted
Findings of contempt made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr J O'Hara
First Defendant	:	In Person
First Second Defendant	:	In Person
Second Second Defendant	:	In Person
Third Defendant	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	In Person
First Defendant	:	In Person
First Second Defendant	:	In Person
Second Second Defendant	:	In Person
Third Defendant	:	In Person

Cases referred to in decision:

Mammoth Investments v Donaldson [2024] WASCA 71
Michelmore v Brown & Ors [No 3] [2025] WASC 9
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Allen [2012] WASC 258
R v Dunbabin; Ex Parte Williams [1935] 53 CLR 443
R v Eades 6 WAR 532

SOLOMON J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 22 April 2025 and has been edited from the transcript.)

The applications

These reasons concern two applications of the plaintiff, Ms Michelmore, alleging that the second defendants, Mr Jerald Gleason Martin and Ms Emma Hazel Martin be committed for contempt of the orders of this court made by Tottle J on 15 January 2025.
The applications were brought by two separate chamber summonses, dated respectively 11 March 2025 and 1 April 2025.
The plaintiff is represented today by counsel. The second defendants appeared in person, and I recorded responses of not guilty to the allegations made by the plaintiff in the two chamber summonses, which were read to each of them separately. In addition, the first defendant attended, and made submissions, and then elected not to remain for the balance of the hearing.
The terms of the chamber summons of 11 March 2025 are as follows:
1.The Second Defendants be committed for contempt of this Honourable Court, by their conduct between around 18 February 2025 and 26 February 2025 in publishing to persons associated with the 'Sovereign Peoples Assembly of Western Australia' statements contained in a document titled 'Statement of Claim' (created on 16 February 2025 and printed on 18 February 2025) which statements conveyed imputations set out in [119(a)] of the reasons for judgment published in this matter on 15 January 2025 contrary to order 3 of the orders of the Honourable Justice Tottle made on 15 January 2025.
2.The Second Defendants pay the costs of this application on an indemnity basis, to be assessed if not agreed.
The terms of the chamber summons of 1…

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 Michelmore v Brown [No 5]

Details

AGLC: Michelmore v Brown [No 5] [2025] WASC 152
Case: [2025] WASC 152
Decision Date: 2 MAY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between Michelmore and Brown. The issue at hand was whether Brown had contravened a court order by engaging in activities that the court deemed to be pseudo-law. The matter was heard in the Australian court, which had jurisdiction to determine the matter of contempt of court. The central legal issue was whether Brown's actions constituted a contempt of court by contravening a specific court order, and if so, whether the court had the authority to enforce its order against Brown's pseudo-law activities.

The court considered whether Brown's engagement in pseudo-law activities constituted a direct challenge to the authority of the court and whether such activities amounted to contempt of court. The court examined the nature of Brown's actions and the extent to which they contravened the specific court order. In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of upholding the authority of the court and the rule of law. The court determined that Brown's activities did indeed contravene the court order and that they constituted contempt of court. The court further found that it had the authority to enforce its order against Brown's pseudo-law activities, as they represented a challenge to the court's authority and the legal system.

In conclusion, the court held that Brown had contravened the court order by engaging in pseudo-law activities, which amounted to contempt of court. The court's authority to enforce its order against such activities was affirmed, and the matter was resolved in favour of Michelmore. The court's decision emphasised the importance of upholding the authority of the court and the rule of law in the face of challenges posed by pseudo-law activities. The court ordered Brown to cease all pseudo-law activities and comply with the specific court order, and it warned of potential consequences for any future non-compliance.

Orders