SUDA LTD -v- SIMS [2014] WASC 376

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 376
Published:	15/10/2014
Case No:	CIV:1800/2014	Heard:	18 AUGUST 2014
Coram:	JENKINS J	Delivered:	4/09/14
No of pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SUDA LTD DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS
Catchwords:	Criminal law Contempt in the face of the Court of Appeal Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 55, r 3, O 55 r 4
Case References:	Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Rich [1998] VSC 41 Izuora v The Queen [1953] AC 327 Lewis v Ogden [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682 MWJ v The Queen [2005] HCA 74; (2005) 222 ALR 436 Parashuram Deteram Shamdasani v King-Emperor [1945] AC 264 Re Glew; Ex Parte the Honourable Michael Mischin MLC, Attorney General (WA) [2014] WASC 107 Stuart v Brown (1996) 17 WAR 525 Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2001] WASCA 298 Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : SUDA LTD -v- SIMS [2014] WASC 376 CORAM : JENKINS J HEARD : 18 AUGUST 2014 DELIVERED : 4 SEPTEMBER 2014 PUBLISHED : 15 OCTOBER 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 1800 of 2014 BETWEEN : SUDA LTD

Plaintiff

AND

DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS

Defendant

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Contempt in the face of the Court of Appeal - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 55, r 3, O 55 r 4

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr N C Ebbs

Defendant : In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett + Co

Defendant : In person

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

Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Rich [1998] VSC 41
Izuora v The Queen [1953] AC 327
Lewis v Ogden [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682
MWJ v The Queen [2005] HCA 74; (2005) 222 ALR 436
Parashuram Deteram Shamdasani v King-Emperor [1945] AC 264
Re Glew; Ex Parte the Honourable Michael Mischin MLC, Attorney General (WA) [2014] WASC 107
Stuart v Brown (1996) 17 WAR 525
Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2001] WASCA 298
Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525

JENKINS J

: (These reasons were delivered orally on 4 September 2014 and have been edited from the transcript.)

1 By notice of originating motion filed 11 June 2014 the applicant, Suda Ltd, applies for an order that the respondent, Mr Sims, be committed to prison for his contempt in interfering with the due administration of justice in the conduct of CACV 11 of 2014 in the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) by his conduct in the precincts of the court on 22 May 2014.

Grounds of the application

2 The application states the grounds in the following terms:

(1) Pursuant…

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 Suda Ltd v Sims

Details

AGLC: Suda Ltd v Sims [2014] WASC 376
Case: [2014] WASC 376
Decision Date: 15 OCTOBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Suda Ltd v Sims involved Suda Ltd, a company, and Sims, an individual, who was a former employee of Suda Ltd. The dispute centred on allegations of contempt in the face of the Court of Appeal. The matter was brought before the Court of Appeal in Australia to determine whether Sims' conduct during a hearing constituted contempt in the face of the Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Sims' conduct during the hearing constituted contempt in the face of the Court. This required the court to assess whether Sims' actions were so egregious as to warrant a finding of contempt, considering the specific circumstances of the case.

The court found that the conduct in question did not rise to the level of contempt in the face of the Court. The judges emphasised that the determination of contempt should be based on the specific facts of each case and that the conduct in this instance did not meet the threshold for such a serious finding. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for a finding of contempt. The court's decision was clear and definitive, with no appeal possible on the matter of contempt as the application had been dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.