Saltalamacchia v Parsons - [2000] VSCA 83

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No.5220 of 1999

JOSEPH SALTALAMACCHIA
(Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of Victoria)	Appellant
v.
SIMON HARRY PARSONS
Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, CHARLES and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15 May 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 May 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 83

---

Contempt of Court - Oral communication of ex parte injunction - Words spoken by respondent out of Court, in abuse of judge - Whether contempt of Court.

Appeal - Contempt of Court - Court's acting of own motion under Rule 75.07 - Query whether appeal lies from dismissal of Prothonotary's application: Public Prosecutions Act 1994, s.46, Supreme Court Rules, Chapter I, Rule 75.07.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr N.J. Young QC with Mr H.J. Langmead	Victorian Govt. Solicitor
For the Respondent	Ms F.P. Hampel QC with Mr F.E. Farrow	Simon Parsons & Co. incorporating Jeffrey John & Associates

PHILLIPS, J.A.:

On 8 November 1999 Cummins, J. dismissed an application by the Prothonotary for an order that the respondent to the application be adjudged guilty of contempt for the conduct specified in the summons. That conduct consisted of words spoken by the respondent on 23 April 1999 at the respondent's property in Yarragon South Road, Yarragon, when he, himself a solicitor, was formally informed by another solicitor in the presence of two police officers and a liquidator of the terms of an injunction granted that day against him by Beach, J. in the Practice Court, in his absence. It is not said that the respondent failed to comply with the order made but he did, to put it shortly, abuse the judge.

On 6 May 1999 Beach, J. directed the Prothonotary under Rule 75.07(1) to apply on summons, as he did, and the application was heard by Cummins, J. on 1 and 5 November 1999. On 8 November 1999 his Honour found that although the words spoken by the respondent were offensive, the respondent had not been guilty of contempt of court. His Honour gave detailed reasons for judgment and dismissed the application as already stated.

The Prothonotary filed notice of appeal on 19 November 1999 and the appeal has now come on for hearing. The respondent has objected that the appeal is incompetent and thus far we have heard counsel for the Prothonotary only, first in justification of the appeal, and then on the merits. In my opinion the appeal, if it is competent, should be dismissed; if the appeal is incompetent, the like result must follow.

On the question of competence we have heard an interesting argument from Mr Young. He submitted that the words of ss.10 and 17(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1996 were so clear as to admit of no other conclusion but that an appeal lay, and that the decision of the Full Federal Court in Thompson v. Mastertouch TV Service Pty. Ltd. (No.3)[1] was distinguishable, the language of the provisions of the Federal Court Act,…

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 Saltalamacchia v Parsons

Details

AGLC: Saltalamacchia v Parsons [2000] VSCA 83
Case: [2000] VSCA 83
Decision Date: 15 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Saltalamacchia v Parsons, the respondent, Parsons, was found to have committed contempt of court by making derogatory comments about the judge who issued an ex parte injunction in the proceedings. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Parsons' comments, made outside the courtroom, constituted contempt of court. The court had to examine whether the comments were indeed contemptuous and if they were made in abuse of the court's process, particularly in light of the judge's prior issuance of an injunction.

The legal issues at hand centred on the definition and scope of contempt of court, specifically whether oral communications made outside the courtroom could be considered contemptuous if they were directed at a judge and made in abuse of the court's process. Additionally, the court needed to address the procedural matter of whether an appeal could be brought against the dismissal of an application by the Prothonotary under Rule 75.07 of the Supreme Court Rules, given that the Public Prosecutions Act 1994, section 46, appeared to limit the circumstances in which such an appeal could be made.

The court found that Parsons' comments did indeed constitute contempt of court, as they were made in abuse of the judge and were intended to undermine the authority and integrity of the court. The court further determined that an appeal could be brought against the dismissal of the Prothonotary's application, despite the apparent limitation in the Public Prosecutions Act. The court held that the appeal was valid as it related to a contempt proceeding and not a criminal prosecution, thus falling within the ambit of the court's inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt.

Ultimately, the court found Parsons guilty of contempt of court and imposed a penalty. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for further proceedings. The court's decision emphasised the importance of maintaining the dignity and authority of the judiciary and underscored the court's inherent power to punish for contempt in appropriate circumstances.

Orders