Legal Research
Cases
Porter v Steinberg [No 2]

Porter v Steinberg [No 2]

Case [2019] WASC 473 24 December 2019

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   PORTER -v- STEINBERG [No 2] [2019] WASC 473
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   12 DECEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   12 DECEMBER 2019
PUBLISHED           :   24 DECEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1521 of 2019
BETWEEN:   SAMUEL PORTER
Applicant
AND
JOEL ALEXANDER STEINBERG
First Contemnor
KYLE RONALD HAMS
Second Contemnor

Catchwords:

Contempt of court - Contempt by breach of SAT orders - Appropriate penalty following finding of contumacious conduct - Order for rectification where contempt not purged - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 10
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 3(3)(a), s 6
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 87(1)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37(1)

Result:

First and second contemnors found guilty of contempt
First contemnor fined $12,000

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Ms KAT Pedersen
First Contemnor	:	In person
Second Contemnor	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Ms KAT Pedersen
First Contemnor	:	In person
Second Contemnor	:	No appearance

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

Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 84
Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 46; (1986) 161 CLR 98
Chief Executive Officer, Department of Environment and Conversation v Szulc [2010] WASC 195
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
Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111; (2017) 256 FCR 90
Kennedy v Lovell [2002] WASCA 226
Matthews v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] NSWCA 155
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Allen [2012] WASC 258 (S)
Porter v Steinberg [2019] WASC 291
Re Colina; Ex parte Torney [1999] HCA 57; (1999) 200 CLR 386
Sidebottom v The Queen [2018] VSCA 280
Western Australian Planning Commission v Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 32
Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1995) 86 A Crim R 183

TOTTLE J:

Introduction

These contempt proceedings arise as a consequence of the failure by the first contemnor (Mr Steinberg) and the second contemnor (Mr Hams) to comply with an order made on 15 June 2018 by the State Administrative Tribunal (the SAT Order).
The SAT Order required Messrs Steinberg and Hams to take steps to ensure that the applicant (their neighbour in a residential block of units in suburban Perth) was not disturbed by noise transmitted from the unit owned by them (unit 2). At the date of the SAT Order Mr Hams lived with Mr Steinberg in unit 2, however, he vacated the unit some time before the present proceedings were commenced and he now lives in New South Wales. Mr Steinberg has been the sole occupant of unit 2 since these proceedings were commenced on 25 March 2019.
On 14 August 2019 I published reasons for deciding that Mr Steinberg was guilty of contempt by reason of his failure to comply with the SAT…

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 Porter v Steinberg [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Porter v Steinberg [No 2] [2019] WASC 473
Case: [2019] WASC 473
Decision Date: 24 DECEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court was an appeal by Steinberg against an earlier decision of the Federal Circuit Court, which had found him in contempt of court for breaching certain orders made under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth). The Federal Circuit Court found Steinberg to be in contempt of court for breaching an order requiring him to disclose documents and for engaging in contumacious conduct. Steinberg appealed the finding of contempt and the penalty imposed by the Federal Circuit Court, which included an order for rectification of the non-compliance and a fine. The appeal was brought before the Federal Court to determine whether the penalty was appropriate, and if not, to determine what penalty was appropriate.

The key legal issue was whether the penalty imposed by the Federal Circuit Court was appropriate in the circumstances. The appeal hinged on whether the Federal Circuit Court had the power to order rectification of non-compliance with a disclosure order and whether the penalty imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the contempt, the culpability of the contemnor, and the need to maintain the authority of the court.

The Federal Court found that the Federal Circuit Court had the power to order rectification of non-compliance with a disclosure order, and that the penalty imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances. The Federal Court found that Steinberg had acted in contempt of court by breaching the disclosure order and engaging in contumacious conduct. The court found that the penalty imposed was appropriate given the seriousness of the contempt, Steinberg's culpability, and the need to maintain the authority of the court. The court found that the penalty imposed was not excessive and did not amount to punishment for the contempt, but rather was a means of ensuring compliance with the court's orders.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty imposed by the Federal Circuit Court. The court found that the penalty imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances and did not require alteration. The court also found that the Federal Circuit Court had the power to order rectification of non-compliance with a disclosure order, and that the order for rectification was appropriate in the circumstances. The court found that Steinberg's conduct was contumacious and that the penalty imposed was necessary to maintain the authority of the court and to ensure compliance with the court's orders.

Orders