Peterson v Ceccon [No 2] - [2024] WASC 387

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   PETERSON -v- CECCON [No 2] [2024] WASC 387
CORAM:   LEMONIS J
HEARD:   12 SEPTEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   18 OCTOBER 2024
PUBLISHED           :   23 OCTOBER 2024
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 - Defendant deliberately breached orders made against her - Second occasion where the defendant has committed contempt by reason of breaching those orders - Consideration of applicable principles - Penalty imposed

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA)
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Defendant sentenced to imprisonment for 15 weeks commencing 18 October 2024

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):

Caratti v Boban Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [No 2] [2015] WASC 139
Celtic Capital Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Celtic Capital Trust v Ceccon [2022] WASC 205
Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111
Peterson v Ceccon [2023] WASC 488
R v T [2022] WASCA 34
The State of Western Australia v Rayapen [2023] WASCA 55

LEMONIS J:

(These reasons were delivered orally on 18 October 2024. They have been amended to correct matters of language, to include full references to authorities, orders and legislation, and to include citations. They also have been amended to include source references to the evidence.)

Background

These reasons concern an application for contempt brought by the plaintiffs (Mr Peterson and Celtic) against the defendant (Ms Ceccon). Mr Peterson is the director of Celtic.
The contempt is constituted by Ms Ceccon's conduct in breach of orders made by the Honourable Justice Archer on 13 September 2023 (the Primary Orders). Ms Ceccon admits the contempt.[1]
[1] Hearing 18 July 2024.
This is now the second occasion that Ms Ceccon will be penalised for contempt constituted by a breach of the Primary Orders. On 19 December 2023, Archer J sentenced Ms Ceccon to a term of imprisonment of 3 months, on the condition that the commitment to prison not be executed if by a certain date Ms Ceccon paid a fine of $25,000 and the plaintiffs' legal costs in the sum of $28,000.[2] Ms Ceccon paid those amounts by the required date and therefore was not required to serve the term of imprisonment.
[2] Peterson v Ceccon [2023] WASC 488 [104] (Ceccon No. 1).
The background to the making of the Primary Orders is as follows.
On 21 June 2022, the Honourable Justice Smith delivered reasons in respect of civil proceedings brought by Celtic against Ms Ceccon.[3]
[3] Celtic Capital Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Celtic Capital Trust v Ceccon

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 Peterson v Ceccon [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Peterson v Ceccon [No 2] [2024] WASC 387
Case: [2024] WASC 387
Decision Date: 23 OCTOBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Peterson v Ceccon [No 2], the parties involved were Peterson, the plaintiff, and Ceccon, the defendant. The dispute arose from a deliberate breach of court orders by the defendant, which amounted to contempt. This was not the first instance of such a breach, leading to a second occasion where the defendant was found to have committed contempt. The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Queensland, highlighting the gravity of the defendant's actions and the need for appropriate consequences.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate penalty for the defendant's contempt, given the repeat nature of her breaches of court orders. The court was required to consider the principles applicable to contempt cases, particularly those concerning the seriousness of the breach and the necessity of imposing a penalty that would deter future breaches. The court also had to balance the need for punishment with the importance of maintaining the integrity and authority of the court.

The court found that the defendant's actions were a serious breach of the court's orders, and her deliberate nature in doing so warranted a significant penalty. The repeat nature of her contempt further emphasised the need for a strong deterrent. The court imposed a penalty that reflected the seriousness of the contempt, aiming to uphold the authority of the court and deter future breaches. The court's decision was grounded in the principles of maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that court orders are respected and adhered to by all parties involved.

Orders