CITATION: Novotny v. Cropley [2005] NSWCA 26
HEARING DATE(S): 9 February 2005
JUDGMENT DATE:
9 February 2005JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Hodgson JA at 2; Santow J at 22
DECISION: Summons dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: CONTEMPT OF COURT - Tendency to interfere with course of justice - Allegation of pressure on unrepresented litigant - Allegation of causing unreasonable delay - Whether client responsible for solicitor's conduct.
CASES CITED: Attorney-General's Reference (No.2 of 1999) [2000] QB 796.
Bhagat v. Global Custodians Ltd. [2002] NSWCA 160
Forestview Nominees Pty. Ltd. v. Perron Investments Pty. Ltd. (1999) 160 ALR 482
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd. v. Securities Commission [1995] AC 500
Supply of Readymix Concrete No.2; Re [1995] AC 456PARTIES: Jiri Novotny - claimant
Jennifer Eirian Cropley - opponentFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40773/04
COUNSEL: Mr. Novotny appeared for himself
SOLICITORS: McCabe Terrill, Sydney for opponent
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court
CA 40773/04
Wednesday 9 February 2005HANDLEY JA
HODGSON JA
SANTOW JA
NOVOTNY V. CROPLEY
Judgment
1 HANDLEY JA: I will ask Hodgson JA to give the first judgment.
2 HODGSON JA: The proceedings now before the Court were commenced by summons filed on 13 September 2004, in which the claimant Dr Novotny sought a declaration that the opponent Jennifer Cropley is guilty of contempt, and also sought some consequential relief. The contempt alleged was that the opponent attempted to pressurise improperly the claimant to settle legal proceedings by “inviting” the claimant to withdraw his appeal, and groundlessly referring to his case as “hopeless”.
3 The appeal in question is that in proceedings No.40638/04 in the Court of Appeal, in respect of which leave to appeal was granted on 10 September 2004, and which was heard on 9 December 2004. On that day judgment was given by Mason P, concurred in by myself and Santow JA, which inter alia set out the relevant history of that appeal.
4 One basis of the contempt charge is a letter dated 26 July 2004 sent by the opponent’s solicitors McCabe Terrill to the claimant, which was in the following terms:
COURT OF APPEAL No. 40368 OF 2004
JIRI NOVOTNY v JENNIFER EIRIAN CROPLEY.
We enclose by way of service, the Opponent’s Response filed in the Court of Appeal on 26 July 2004.
We refer to the hearing of the leave application in respect to this matter being listed for 10 September 2004.
It is our view that you have failed to demonstrate any error of law in the decision of either Dodd J in the District Court or O’Shane LCM in the Local Court. The grounds on which your Appeal is based are in our view hopeless, in that no error of law is evident nor has any denial of procedural fairness been proven, it is therefore our view that your Appeal should be dismissed with an order as to indemnity costs on the next occasion, noting that you will not be granted leave to appeal and the matter will not proceed to…
Continue reading Novotny v Cropley
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Novotny v Cropley [2005] NSWCA 26
- Case
- [2005] NSWCA 26
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's conduct, as alleged by the applicants, constituted contempt of court. This involved determining whether the actions taken by the respondent were capable of interfering with the administration of justice, and crucially, whether the respondent could be held responsible for the conduct of his solicitor in the context of these allegations.
The Court considered the principles governing contempt of court, particularly concerning conduct that might prejudice or interfere with the due administration of justice. It was held that the applicants had failed to establish the necessary elements of contempt against the respondent. The Court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the respondent's actions, or those for which he could be held responsible, amounted to contempt. Consequently, the summons seeking committal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Summons dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.