Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Amber Harrison - [2018] NSWSC 633

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Amber Harrison [2018] NSWSC 633
Hearing dates: 9 May 2018
Date of orders: 09 May 2018
Decision date: 09 May 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Pembroke J
Decision:
See paragraph [8]

Catchwords: PROCEDURE – civil contempt of Court – contravention of Court orders – clear and deliberate breach
Cases Cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Monarch FX Group Pty Ltd, in the matter of Monarch FX Group Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1387
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Seven Network (Operations) Limited – first plaintiff
Seven West Media Limited – second defendant
Amber Harrison - defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
A Bell SC with K Smark – for the first and second plaintiffs
Solicitors:
Johnson Winter & Slattery – for the first and second plaintiffs

File Number(s): 2017/045726

Judgment

This is a contempt application by the plaintiffs. They seek a declaration that the defendant was in contempt of court for breaching certain Court orders made on 18 July 2017. They do not seek any order that the defendant be punished for contempt. Nor do they seek a costs order against her.
The substantive proceedings are long over; the defendant does not wish to appear or contest the contempt application; and there is nothing to contradict the evidence or submissions on which the plaintiffs rely. There is no forensic contest and the parties consented to the application being dealt with in chambers. I encouraged them to do so in order to reduce costs, to avoid the need for the defendant to come to court and to minimise publicity.
Although I retain a discretion, there is no sound reason for not making the declarations sought. The facts are beyond reasonable doubt. And there is utility in making such a declaration because it will uphold and reinforce the principle that orders of this Court must be obeyed. The declaration will represent a formal disapprobation of the defendant’s conduct in flouting the orders of the Court: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Monarch FX Group Pty Ltd, in the matter of Monarch FX Group Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1387 at [62]-[65]. And it means that if the defendant commits future breaches of the orders of this Court, the fact of this declaration will be taken into account.
The Court orders made on 18 July 2017 were in the following terms:

1.   The Defendant be enjoined from:
(a)   either directly or indirectly, giving any interviews to any medium or media, or from making, authorising or procuring any public statement, publication, off the record comment, background information, publications, press releases, press conferences, or from participating in social media, about the Company, any of the Beneficiaries or any of the other Group Members, the Termination, the Employment, the Relationship, the Expenses or the First Deed;
(b)   whether by herself, or otherwise, making any statement publicly or otherwise about the Termination, the Relationship, the First Deed, the Expenses, the Company, any of the Beneficiaries or any of…

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 Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Amber Harrison

Details

AGLC: Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Amber Harrison [2018] NSWSC 633
Case: [2018] NSWSC 633
Decision Date: 09 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Amber Harrison came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Seven Network (Operations) Limited, sought to enforce an order of civil contempt against the defendant, Amber Harrison, for her alleged contravention of specific court orders. The orders in question were designed to protect the plaintiff's intellectual property rights and to prevent the defendant from publishing or disseminating certain confidential information. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had deliberately breached these orders by continuing to post and share the protected content on social media platforms.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant had indeed breached the court's orders and, if so, whether this constituted a clear and deliberate act of contempt. The court had to determine whether the evidence presented demonstrated that the defendant was aware of the orders and intentionally disregarded them. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the breach had caused significant harm to the plaintiff's business interests or reputation.

In examining the evidence, the court found that the defendant had indeed continued to publish the protected content despite being fully aware of the court's orders. The defendant's actions were deemed to be deliberate, given the persistence in posting the information after receiving the court orders. The court held that the defendant's actions constituted a clear and deliberate breach of the orders, amounting to civil contempt. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court orders to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and to protect the rights of all parties involved. As a result, the court found the defendant in contempt of court and ordered her to pay damages to the plaintiff, along with any applicable costs.

Orders