Legal Research
Cases
Resolute Ltd v Warnes

Resolute Ltd v Warnes

Case [2000] WASCA 359 21 November 2000

Contempt of Court

Abuse of Process

Defamation

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

RESOLUTE LTD & ANOR -v- WARNES [2000] WASCA 359

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 359
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	CIV:1369/2000	Heard:	2 NOVEMBER 2000
Coram:	KENNEDY J IPP J MILLER J	Delivered:	21/11/00
No of pages:	20	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	RESOLUTE LTD (ACN 009 069 014) MICHAEL JOSEPH CARRICK MARK BRADLEY WARNES
Catchwords:	Contempt Interference with course of justice and administration of law Publication offensively critical of party defending proceedings Pending defamation proceedings Practical reality of publication Right to ventilate matters of public interest
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Attorney General v Hislop [1991] 1 QB 514 Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273 Davis v Baillie [1946] VLR 486 Fry v Bray [1959] 1 FLR 366 Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 Hinch v Attorney General (Vic) [No 2] (1987) 164 CLR 15 John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351 R v Thompson [1989] WAR 219 R v West Australian Newspapers Ltd; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (1996) 16 WAR 518 Smith v Lakeman (1856) 26 LJ (NSCH) 305 Willshire-Smith v Votino Bros Pty Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 496 Attorney General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 1 NSWLR 362 Attorney General v Butterworth [1963] 1 QB 696 R v Pearce (1991) 7 WAR 395

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : RESOLUTE LTD & ANOR -v- WARNES [2000] WASCA 359 CORAM : KENNEDY J

IPP J

MILLER J

HEARD : 2 NOVEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 21 NOVEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 1369 of 2000 BETWEEN : RESOLUTE LTD (ACN 009 069 014)

First Applicant

MICHAEL JOSEPH CARRICK

Second Applicant

AND

MARK BRADLEY WARNES

Respondent/Contemnor

Catchwords:

Contempt - Interference with course of justice and administration of law - Publication offensively critical of party defending proceedings - Pending defamation proceedings - Practical reality of publication - Right to ventilate matters of public interest

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Application allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

First Applicant : Mr M L Bennett

Second Applicant : Mr M L Bennett

Respondent/Contemnor : In person

Solicitors:

First Applicant : Bennett & Co

Second Applicant : Bennett & Co

Respondent/Contemnor : In person

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

Attorney General v Hislop [1991] 1 QB 514
Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273
Davis v Baillie [1946] VLR 486
Fry v Bray [1959] 1 FLR 366
Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22
Hinch v Attorney General (Vic) [No 2] (1987) 164 CLR 15
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351
R v Thompson [1989] WAR 219
R v West Australian Newspapers Ltd; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (1996) 16 WAR 518
Smith v Lakeman (1856) 26 LJ (NSCH) 305
Willshire-Smith v Votino Bros Pty Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 496

Case(s) also cited:

Attorney General (NSW) v John Fairfax…

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 Resolute Ltd v Warnes

Details

AGLC: Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359
Case: [2000] WASCA 359
Decision Date: 21 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Resolute Ltd v Warnes, the applicant sought an injunction and a declaration of contempt against the respondent, who had published a book critical of the applicant. The publication occurred during ongoing defamation proceedings between the parties. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the publication constituted contempt of court due to its offensive criticism of the applicant, and if it interfered with the course of justice and the administration of law.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the respondent's book, which was critically offensive towards the applicant, constituted contempt of court. The court needed to consider whether the publication interfered with the course of justice and the administration of law, given the ongoing defamation proceedings. The court also examined the practical reality of the publication and whether it ventilated matters of public interest.

The court held that the publication did constitute contempt of court. It found that the book's offensive criticism of the applicant could reasonably be seen as interfering with the course of justice and the administration of law. The court determined that the publication's timing, during ongoing defamation proceedings, and its nature, being critically offensive, contributed to the interference. The court balanced the right to ventilate matters of public interest against the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process. Ultimately, the court concluded that the publication was contemptuous and granted the applicant's application for an injunction and a declaration of contempt.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359

Most Recent Citation

Melbourne University Student Union Inc (in liq) v Ray [2006] VSC 205

Cases citing this decision · 20 of 20 shown

Kelly v Hilton [No 5]
[2024] WASC 343

…SCA 233 Re Coroner's Court of Western Australia; Ex parte Porteous (2002) 26 WAR 483 Re Smauel Goldman [1968] 2 NSWR 325 Resolute Ltd & Anor v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 Smith v Lakeman (1856) 26 LJ Ch 305 Treasury Wine Estates Pty Ltd v Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd (2020) 282 FCR 95 Websyte Corporation Pty Ltd v Alexand…
Yap v Matic [No 5]
[2023] WASC 15 Para 2

…ng certain types of interference with litigants the law distinguishes between proper and improper pressure. [15] Resolute Limited & Anor v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 [13]. See also Day v Woolworths Group Limited [2021] QCA 42 [12].…
Scenic Rim Regional Council v Cutbush
[2021] QCAT 371 Para 1

…stated by Ipp J, with whom Kennedy and Miller JJ agreed, in the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Resolute Ltd v Warnes :[9] [9][2000] WASCA 359. [13] The principles to be applied, generally, to a contempt of the nature alleged were examined by Mason P in Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR…
Day v Woolworths Group Limited
[2021] QCA 42 Para 2

…unquestionably a contempt of court”. See also Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 and Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 at [13]. 39.Fifthly, in a contempt involving obstruction of the administration of justice, the plaintiff must prove, according to the criminal standard of proof, that the material in qu…
Ulman v Live Group Pty Ltd
[2018] NSWCA 338 Para 75

…In the same case, Ipp AJA referred, at [53], to what he had said in Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 at [19], in the context of a public publication:…
Day v Woolworths Limited
[2018] QSC 82 Para 20

…onably a contempt of court.’ See also Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 and Resolute Ltd & Anor v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 at [13]. [39] Fifthly, in a contempt involving obstruction of the administration of justice, the plaintiff must prove, according to the criminal standard of proof, that the material in qu…
Sandy v Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC
[2016] WASC 350 Para 1

…eedings such as these were set out by Mason P in Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22, 27 ‑ 30 and summarised by Ipp J in Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 as follows: The principles to be applied, generally, to contempt of the nature alleged were examined by Mason P in Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWL…
Basetec Services Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2015] FCA 762 Para 10

…om the conduct is directed to withstand the pressure and, conversely, the vulnerability of such a party, has been considered in Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359, in particular at [13], and in Gallagher v Destiny Publications Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 40 at [25].…
Gallagher v Destiny Publications Pty Ltd
[2015] WASC 40 Para 1

…Further principles emerge in the observations of the Full Court in Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 ( Resolute v Warnes [2000]). Again Ipp J citing Mason P in Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 sets out relevant principles as follows [13](c), (d) and (e):…
Munsie v Dowling
[2014] NSWSC 458

…ct 2002 Cases Cited: ABC v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84 at 96; [1972] 1 All ER 1023 Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2007] FCA 1062 Y and Z v W [2007] NSWCA 329; (2007) 70 NSWLR 377 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Justin…
Re Glew
[2014] WASC 107 Para 7

…It is not necessary to show that the contemnor intended to interfere with the administration of justice: Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 [13]; Re Coroners Court of Western Australia; Ex parte Porteous [2002] WASCA 144; (2002) 26 WAR 483 [13]; and Mansell v Mignacca-Randazzo [2013] WASC 66 [86] (Hall J). In c…
Mansell v Mignacca-Randazzo
[2013] WASC 66 Para 6

…nceived. Intention to commit contempt in the face of the court is not an element of the offence under s 15(1)(e) of the MCA. In Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 [13] (Ipp J) (Kennedy and Miller JJ agreeing) it was held that intention to interfere with the administration of justice was not a required element o…
Y and Z v W
[2007] NSWCA 329

…hompson [1989] WAR 219 Resolute Ltd & Anor v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 Silktone Pty Limited v Devreal Capital Pty Limited (1990) 21 NSWLR 317 Smith v Lakeman (1856) 26 LJ Ch 305 Thompson-Schwab v Costaki [1956] 1 All ER 652 Waterhouse v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1986) 6 NSWLR 716 Willshire-Smith v Votino B…
Powell v In De Braekt
[2007] WASC 165

…Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 Smith v Lakeman (1856) 26 LJ (NS) Ch 305 State of Western Australia v Montani [2007] WASC 110 X v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2007] HCA 4…
Melbourne University Student Union Inc (in liq) v Ray
[2006] VSC 205 Para 1

…at 27-30. [4]For example: North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley (2001) 188 ALR 312 per Wilcox J at [29]; Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 per Kennedy, Ipp and Miller JJ; Timania Pty Ltd v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 732 per Finkelstein J.…
Novotny v Cropley
[2005] NSWCA 26 Para 19

…tion between an “objective” and a “subjective” test for the real tendency issue, preferring an objective test. In Resolute Limited v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 at [19] Ipp J said: “In the circumstances, a primary question is whether the published material has, as a matter of practical reality, a real (or clear) and de…
Clark v Richards
[2003] WASC 5 Para 2

…ey‑General (UK) v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273; Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Preston [1981] 2 NSWLR 554; Resolute Ltd & Anor v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359.…
Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd
[2002] NSWCA 160 Para 25

…nction between an “objective” and a “subjective” test for the real tendency issue, preferring an objective test. In Resolute Limited v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 at [19] Ipp J said: “In the circumstances, a primary question is whether the published material has, as a matter of practical reality, a real (or clear) and…
Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission
[2001] WASCA 354

…J & P Coats v Chadwick [1894] 1 Ch 347 Mickelberg v The Queen (No 3) (1992) 8 WAR 236 Monaco v Arnedo Pty Ltd (1994) 13 WAR 522 Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission & Anor [2001] WATPAT 4 Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 173 ALR 648 Appliance…
Resolute Ltd v Warnes
[2001] WASCA 4

…(1997) 42 NSWLR 22 Harris v Muirhead (1993) 2 Qd R 527 Morris v Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114 R v Pearce (1992) 7 WAR 395 Resolute Ltd & Anor v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd & John Laws [1998] NSWSC 28 Clarkson v The Mandarin Club [1998] 1685 FCA…

View all 20 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 8 of 8 shown

Harkianakis v Skalkos (No 2)
[1997] NSWCA 137

…1991] 1 QB 514 Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273 Davis v Baillie [1946] VLR 486 Fry v Bray [1959] 1 FLR 366 Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 Hinch v Attorney General (Vic) [No 2] (1987) 164 CLR 15 John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351 R v Thompson [1989] WAR 219 R v West Au…
Willshire-Smith, D. v Votino Bros. P/L
[1993] FCA 198

…rs Ltd; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (1996) 16 WAR 518 Smith v Lakeman (1856) 26 LJ (NSCH) 305 Willshire-Smith v Votino Bros Pty Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 496 Attorney General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 1 NSWLR 362 Attorney General v Butterworth [1963] 1 QB 696 R v Pearce (1991) 7 WAR 395…
Willshire-Smith v Votino Bros Pty Ltd
[1993] FCA 138

…] WAR 219 R v West Australian Newspapers Ltd; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (1996) 16 WAR 518 Smith v Lakeman (1856) 26 LJ (NSCH) 305 Willshire-Smith v Votino Bros Pty Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 496 Attorney General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 1 NSWLR 362 Attorney General v Butterworth [1963] 1 QB 696 R v Pearce (1991) 7 WAR…
Hinch v Attorney-General (Vic)
[1987] HCA 56

…974] AC 273 Davis v Baillie [1946] VLR 486 Fry v Bray [1959] 1 FLR 366 Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 Hinch v Attorney General (Vic) [No 2] (1987) 164 CLR 15 John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351 R v Thompson [1989] WAR 219 R v West Australian Newspapers Ltd; Ex parte Director of Public Pro…
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae
[1955] HCA 12

…[1959] 1 FLR 366 Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 Hinch v Attorney General (Vic) [No 2] (1987) 164 CLR 15 John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351 R v Thompson [1989] WAR 219 R v West Australian Newspapers Ltd; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (1996) 16 WAR 518 Smith v Lakeman (1856…
[1974] AC 273
[1974] AC 273

…Attorney General v Hislop [1991] 1 QB 514 Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273 Davis v Baillie [1946] VLR 486 Fry v Bray [1959] 1 FLR 366 Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 Hinch v Attorney General (Vic) [No 2] (1987) 164 CLR 15 John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351 R v Tho…
[1963] 1 QB 696
[1963] 1 QB 696

…hire-Smith v Votino Bros Pty Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 496 Attorney General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 1 NSWLR 362 Attorney General v Butterworth [1963] 1 QB 696 R v Pearce (1991) 7 WAR 395…
[1991] 1 QB 514
[1991] 1 QB 514

…Attorney General v Hislop [1991] 1 QB 514 Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273 Davis v Baillie [1946] VLR 486 Fry v Bray [1959] 1 FLR 366 Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 Hinch v Attorney General (Vic) [No 2] (1987) 164 CLR 15 John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351 R v Thomp…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.