Slater v Smith (No 1) - [2021] NSWSC 759

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Slater v Smith (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 759
Hearing dates: 16 - 17 June 2021
Date of orders: 16 June 2021
Decision date: 16 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
(1) The notice of motion brought by David Bishop filed 10 May 2021 is dismissed.
(2) The notice of motion brought by Jeffery Malcolm Smith filed 12 May 2021 is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CIVIL LAW - contempt - whether Court should order that one party be charged with contempt - self-represented litigant - correspondence including threat to seek indemnity and personal costs - correspondence using judicial comments in a selective way - whether conduct capable of amount to contempt - application without merit - conduct sharp but not contemptuous

Legislation Cited:
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW)

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Matthew Richard Slater (Applicant)
Jeffrey Malcom Smith (Respondent)
Representation: Nil

File Number(s): 2020/347082
Publication restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED)

Before the Court this morning are a series of applications, summonses, and notices of motion between two self-represented litigants, and potentially a third who seeks to be joined. It is unnecessary at this moment - although it may become necessary later - to go into the nature of the dispute between the parties but, in short, it involves disagreements in relation to the management and conduct of the office holders of a company in which both, or all, litigants are shareholders. The result - according to the allegations made on both sides - is that each has defamed the other. The case has a somewhat chequered history, and is currently separated into defamation proceedings before the District Court of New South Wales, and defamation proceedings commenced in South Australia.
The New South Wales defamation proceedings were commenced on the 23 October 2019 by Mr Jeffrey Smith, alleging Mr Slater had defamed him (“the NSW proceedings”). The South Australian defamation proceedings were commenced, on 11 November 2019 by Mr Slater, alleging that Mr Smith had defamed him (“the SA proceedings”). The critical matter before the court this morning, is whether I should stay the NSW proceedings and make orders under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) (“the Cross-vesting Act”), transferring the matter to South Australia (“the Cross-vesting Application”). That is a matter upon which I am yet to hear submissions.
However, what I have heard this morning already are arguments on two notices of motion filed on the 10^th and 12^th May 2021, by Mr Bishop and Mr Smith respectively. In respect of the notice of motion filed 10 May 2021, orders are sought in the following terms:

“An order that Matthew Slater is charged with contempt for breach of civil bench book rule 10-0420: misconduct in relation to pending proceedings.”

An almost identical order was sought in the notice of motion filed on 12 May by Mr Smith.
A body of evidence has been tendered on all of the issues before the court…

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 Slater v Smith (No 1)

Details

AGLC: Slater v Smith (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 759
Case: [2021] NSWSC 759
Decision Date: 16 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Slater and Smith were involved in a legal dispute, the nature of which was not specified. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the self-represented litigant, Slater, should be ordered to be charged with contempt of court due to his conduct, which included correspondence threatening to seek indemnity and personal costs from Smith. The court had to determine if Slater's actions, which included selectively using judicial comments in his correspondence, amounted to contempt of court.

The court examined Slater's conduct and found that while it was sharp and aggressive, it did not rise to the level of contempt. The court noted that Slater's threats and selective use of judicial comments were part of the adversarial process, even though they were not in the best taste. The court concluded that Slater's conduct, while not exemplary, did not undermine the administration of justice or the authority of the court. Consequently, the court found that Slater's conduct was not capable of amounting to contempt. The court also noted that the application Slater had made was without merit.

As a result of the court's findings, Slater was not ordered to be charged with contempt. The court's decision was based on the principle that while Slater's conduct was not ideal, it did not meet the threshold for contempt. The court's ruling was a reminder that parties in legal disputes, particularly those who are self-represented, must adhere to the standards of the legal process, even if they are frustrated or angry. The court's decision was a clear indication that while the legal process can be challenging, it must be conducted with respect and within the bounds of the law.

Orders