CONTEMPT- deliberate obstruction of course of justice - conduct inconsistent with court order - knowingly false evidence concerning that conduct - intention to prevent plaintiff having benefit of judgment CONTEMPT- distinction between civil and criminal contempt CONTEMPT - distinction between perjury and contempt CONTEMPT - avoidance of personal service - personal service not indispensable - substituted service available in contempt proceedings CONTEMPT - absence of contemnor - discretion whether to proceed with hearing and sentence in his absence CONTEMPT- sentencing considerations - fixed or indefinite term of imprisonment CONTEMPT - warrant for committal to a correctional centre COSTS - power to award indemnity costs in contempt proceedings
[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 Ronowska v Kus (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ronowska v Kus (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 817
Case
[2012] NSWSC 817
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Ronowska v Kus (No 2) involved a dispute concerning contempt of court. The defendant, Kus, had been found in contempt for deliberately obstructing the course of justice, providing knowingly false evidence, and attempting to prevent the plaintiff from receiving the benefit of a court judgment. The matter was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues were whether the contempt could be considered civil or criminal, the distinction between contempt and perjury, the availability of substituted service when personal service is not possible, and the discretion of the court to proceed with a hearing and sentence in the absence of the contemnor.
The court addressed the nature of the contempt, determining it to be civil rather than criminal, as it pertained to the enforcement of a court order rather than the punishment of an offence against the public order. The court also clarified that contempt and perjury are distinct, with contempt focusing on conduct inconsistent with the court order and perjury involving false statements made under oath. Regarding the service of court orders, the court ruled that personal service was not indispensable and that substituted service was permissible in contempt proceedings. The court exercised its discretion to proceed with the hearing and sentencing in the absence of the contemnor, finding that his absence did not preclude the court from making a decision.
In terms of sentencing, the court considered the appropriate term of imprisonment, ultimately opting for an indefinite term until the contemnor complied with the court's orders. The court also issued a warrant for the contemnor's committal to a correctional centre if he failed to comply. Regarding costs, the court held that it had the power to award indemnity costs in contempt proceedings, reflecting the seriousness of the contempt and the need to deter such conduct. The court ordered that Kus be committed to a correctional centre until he complied with the court's orders and awarded indemnity costs to the plaintiff.