Peterson v Ceccon

Case [2023] WASC 488

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION:   PETERSON -v- CECCON [2023] WASC 488

CORAM:   ARCHER J

HEARD:   18 & 19 DECEMBER 2023

DELIVERED          :   19 DECEMBER 2023

FILE NO/S:   CIV 2018 of 2023

BETWEEN:   JASON WILLIAM GOULD PETERSON

First Plaintiff

CELTIC CAPITAL PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CELTIC CAPITAL TRUST

Second Plaintiff

AND

CRISTINA CECCON

Defendant


Catchwords:

Contempt - Breach of injunction - Appropriate penalty - Imprisonment unless fine and costs paid

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Defendant ordered to serve 3 months imprisonment, such order not to be executed if, by 9 January 2024, the defendant pays a fine of $25,000 and costs of $28,000

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : J MacLaurin SC
Second Plaintiff : J MacLaurin SC
Defendant : In person

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Armeli & Molony Lawyers
Second Plaintiff : Armeli & Molony Lawyers
Defendant : Not applicable

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

Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 84; (2012) 42 WAR 425

BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd v PT Bayan Resources TBK [No 5] [2023] WASC 116

Brennock & Dixon v Norman [2021] NSWSC 1182

Brookvista Pty Ltd v Meloni [2009] WASCA 180

Celtic Capital Pty Ltd as trustee for the Celtic Capital Trust v Ceccon [2022] WASC 205

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 21; (2015) 256 CLR 375

Dental Board of Australia v Traianou [2011] WASC 293

Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S); (2003) 28 WAR 95

Guerinoni Nominees Pty Ltd v Cullen [2022] WASC 337

In the Marriage of Tate [No 3] [2003] FamCA 112; (2003) 30 Fam LR 427

Infa‑Secure Pty Ltd v Crocker (No 2) [2016] FCA 202

Johnson v Denwest Nominees Pty Ltd t/as Cunderdin Roadhouse [2017] WASCA 200

Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111

Kennedy v Lovell [2002] WASCA 226

Porter v Steinberg [2019] WASC 291

Potato Marketing Corporation of Western Australia v Galati [No 2] [2016] WASC 315

R v T [2022] WASCA 34; (2022) 58 WAR 77

Re Colina; Ex parte Torney [1999] HCA 57; (1999) 200 CLR 386

Swansdale Pty Ltd v Whitcrest Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 129 (S)

Truong v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 177

Yap v Matic [No 6] [2023] WASC 24

ARCHER J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 19 December 2023 and has been edited to correct matters of grammar and language, include references, and add formatting.)

Overview

  1. On 21 June 2022, the defendant Cristina Ceccon lost a civil trial after being found by her Honour Justice Smith to be an untruthful witness.[1]  Ms Ceccon does not accept the outcome.  In about March 2023, Ms Ceccon began to express her disagreement on a Facebook page, making a number of allegations that had been rejected in the civil trial.  In particular, she posted serious allegations about the…

Continue reading Peterson v Ceccon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Peterson v Ceccon [2023] WASC 488
Case
[2023] WASC 488
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Peterson v Ceccon, the dispute between the parties arose from allegations of contempt of court following the breach of certain court orders. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary concern was whether the defendant, Ms Ceccon, had deliberately breached specific court orders and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

The court had to determine several key legal issues, including whether the plaintiff had sufficiently particularised the conduct that constituted the breach of the court orders and if Ms Ceccon had deliberately disobeyed those orders. The court also needed to consider the appropriate penalty for the contempt, particularly whether imprisonment was warranted unless a fine and costs were paid.

In addressing these issues, the court noted that while the initial contempt application lacked sufficient particularity, the amended summons filed by the plaintiff provided adequate details for Ms Ceccon to understand the allegations. Ms Ceccon admitted to each element of the contempt offence, acknowledging her deliberate and voluntary breach of the court orders. The court found that Ms Ceccon’s actions constituted a punishable contempt and imposed a penalty that included imprisonment unless a fine and costs were paid.

The court's final orders were that Ms Ceccon should pay a fine and costs unless she served the specified term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of her contemptuous conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

During the directions hearings, I also raised with the plaintiffs my view that the contempt application failed to sufficiently particularise the conduct said to breach the orders.[17] I gave the plaintiffs leave to file an amended chamber summons. I made programming orders for the hearing of the contempt application.[17] As to which see Potato Marketing Corporation of Western Australia v Galati [No 2] [2016] WASC 315 [14] ‑ [16]. On 21 November 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended chamber summons for contempt,[18] particularising the conduct said to breach the orders. [18] Plaintiffs' Amended Chamber Summons for Contempt of Court filed 21 November 2023 (Chamber Summons). I note that the plaintiffs alleged a single act of contempt, which they particularised as a breach of two of the orders I made, based on many different posts that were not removed (in breach of order 2) and many new posts that were made, on various dates (in breach of order 3). In my view, it would have been open to the plaintiffs to allege multiple acts of contempt. Nevertheless, given the level of particulars now provided, Ms Ceccon could not be in any doubt as to the substance of the contempt that is alleged. Ms Ceccon admits that she has committed contempt of court by failing to remove the derogatory posts and by adding more derogatory posts, in the terms alleged. In Porter v Steinberg,[19] Tottle J summarised the relevant principles as follows (footnotes omitted):[19] Porter v Steinberg [2019] WASC 291 [36] ‑ [39].36The underlying rationale for the exercise of the contempt power is to uphold and protect the effective administration of justice. 37The requirements for proof of a punishable contempt of court are as follows:(i)an order was made by the court;(ii)the terms of the order were clear, unambiguous and capable of compliance;(iii)the order was served on the contemnor or service was dispensed with;(iv)the contemnor has knowledge of the terms of the order; (v)the contemnor has breached the terms of the order; and(vi)the act or omission which constituted the breach of the order was deliberate and voluntary. 38Deliberate disobedience of an order does not require a specific intention to break the law or even knowledge on the part of the contemnor that the relevant conduct constituted a breach. It is sufficient that the contemnor was aware of the facts that make their conduct a breach of the order. In the context of contempt, 'deliberate' means wilful in the sense that the actions of the contemnor were not casual, accidental or unintentional.39Disobedience of a court order constitutes a civil contempt although where the disobedience involves deliberate defiance, that is, where the disobedience can be described as contumacious, it may constitute a criminal contempt. The distinction between criminal and civil contempt is, however, blurred and has been described as illusory. Ms Ceccon admits each of the six elements and admits she is guilty of contempt.[20][20] See exhibit E.