Michelmore v Brown [No 7] - [2025] WASC 247

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   MICHELMORE -v- BROWN [No 7] [2025] WASC 247
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
DELIVERED          :   18 JUNE 2025
PUBLISHED           :   20 JUNE 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2457 of 2023
BETWEEN:   LAURA JANE MICHELMORE
Plaintiff
AND
ADAM SYDNEY BROWN
First Defendant
JERALD MARTIN
EMMA HAZEL MARTIN
Second Defendants
EMERSION PTY LTD as trustee for THE MARTIN TRUST
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Contempt of Court - Penalty - Whether imprisonment appropriate penalty - Where contemnors refuse to recognise jurisdiction of Supreme Court - Deterrence - Maintaining the integrity of the court’s process and authority - Term of imprisonment necessary

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 55 r 3, r 7
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 6

Result:

Second defendants sentenced to 30 days immediate imprisonment

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr J O'Hara
First Defendant	:	In person
Second Defendants	:	In person
Third Defendant	:	Not represented

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	L J Michelmore
First Defendant	:	In person
Second Defendants	:	In person
Third Defendant	:	Not represented

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Hunt v Clarke (1889) 58 L.J. (Q.B.) 490
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351
Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2023] FCAFC 174
Michelmore v Brown [No 3] [2025] WASC 9
Yap v Matic [No 7] [2023] WASC 55

SOLOMON J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 18 June 2025 and has been edited from the transcript).

Background

On 22 April 2025, I found each of the second defendants, Mr Jerald Martin and Ms Emma Hazel Martin, guilty of two charges of contempt of court. The circumstances constituting the contempts are set out in my reasons delivered orally on 22 April 2025 and published on 2 May 2025 in the decision of Michelmore v Brown [No 5] [2025] WASC 152.
In essence, the contempts by Mr and Ms Martin were each constituted by their disobedience of the orders of Tottle J dated 15 January 2025 by:
(1)Publishing statements to a group called the Sovereign Peoples Assembly of Western Australia, contained in a document titled Statement of Claim (created on 16 February 2025 and printed on 18 February 2025). These published statements convey the imputation set out in [119(a)] of the reasons for judgment of Tottle J published on 15 January 2025; and
(2)Publishing to 12 persons associated with the Sovereign Peoples Assembly on 30 March 2025, statements which convey the imputation set out in [119(a)] of the reasons for judgment of Tottle J published on 15 January 2025.[1]
[1] Michelmore v Brown [No 3] [2025] WASC 9.
I did not sentence Mr and Ms Martin on 22 April 2025. I listed the matter for sentencing on today's date, 18 June 2025. I urged Mr and Ms Martin to obtain legal advice for their own benefit and explained to them that the consequences could be very serious, including a term of imprisonment.
Through the Western Australian Bar Association,…

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 7]

Details

AGLC: Michelmore v Brown [No 7] [2025] WASC 247
Case: [2025] WASC 247
Decision Date: 20 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Michelmore v Brown [No 7] involved the contemnors who had previously been found in contempt of the Supreme Court. Their refusal to recognise the court’s jurisdiction had led to their imprisonment. The issue before the court was whether the penalty of imprisonment was appropriate in this instance, considering the contemnors’ stance on the court's authority. The court needed to balance the need to deter contempt and uphold the integrity of the court’s processes against the principle that imprisonment should only be a last resort in contempt cases.

The court assessed whether the contemnors' actions warranted a severe penalty to deter future instances of contempt and to maintain the authority of the court. The decision required consideration of the purpose of contempt penalties, which are to compel obedience to the court's orders, and to deter and punish disobedience. The court also evaluated the principle that imprisonment should be used sparingly in contempt cases, except in instances where it is necessary to maintain the integrity of the court and its processes. In weighing these factors, the court had to determine if the term of imprisonment imposed was justified.

The court concluded that the imprisonment was appropriate in this case. The contemnors’ refusal to recognise the court's jurisdiction posed a significant challenge to the authority and integrity of the court. The court found that the penalty of imprisonment was necessary to deter the contemnors and others from similar conduct in the future. The term of imprisonment was considered proportionate to the nature of the contempt and the need to uphold the court’s authority. Therefore, the court upheld the original penalty.

The court affirmed the imprisonment of the contemnors, emphasising the importance of the court’s authority and the need to deter future instances of contempt. The court's decision underscored the balance between the deterrent effect of the penalty and the principle that imprisonment should be a last resort.

Orders