Sunol v Burns - [2018] NSWCATAD 259

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sunol v Burns [2018] NSWCATAD 259
Hearing dates: 19 October 2018
Date of orders: 08 November 2018
Decision date: 08 November 2018
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: The Hon F Marks, Principal Member
Decision:
Application dismissed

Catchwords: Contempt – application for referral to Supreme Court – publication by respondent of alleged contemptible material made to Registrar –publication of contemptible material made by Tribunal within Reasons for Decision – held conduct capable of constituting contempt of the Tribunal-held further not appropriate to make referral to Supreme Court – application dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
Cases Cited: Burns v Sunol (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 236
Burns v Sunol [2018] NSWCATAD 78
Attorney- General v Times Newspapers [1974] AC 273
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: John Christopher Sunol (Applicant)
Garry Burns (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant Self Represented
Respondent Self Represented

File Number(s): 2018/0015 4165
Publication restriction: Nil

reasons for decision

Background

By application made on 11 May 2018 the applicant, John Christopher Sunol sought an order that this Tribunal refer to the Supreme Court of NSW pursuant to the provisions of section 73 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (“the Act”) certain material which the respondent, Garry Burns had published and which he alleged was in contempt of this Tribunal.
Section 73 of the Act is in the following terms;

73   Contempt of Tribunal
(1)   The Tribunal has, if it is alleged, or appears to the Tribunal on its own view, that a person is guilty of contempt of the Tribunal committed in the face of the Tribunal or in the hearing of the Tribunal, the same powers as the District Court has in those circumstances in relation to a contempt of the District Court.
Note.
Section 27 (1) provides that, in the case of proceedings for contempt of the Tribunal, the Tribunal may be constituted by one or more members (being members who are the President or any other member who is a current or former NSW judicial officer).
(2)   A person is guilty of contempt of the Tribunal if the person does or omits to do any thing that, if the Tribunal were a court of law having power to commit for contempt, would be contempt of that court unless the person establishes that there was a reasonable excuse for the act or omission.
(3)   Without limiting subsection (1), the Tribunal may vacate or revoke an order with respect to contempt of the Tribunal.
(4)   For the purposes of this section:
(a) sections 199, 200 and 202 of the District Court Act 1973 apply to the Tribunal and any members constituting the Tribunal in the same way as they apply to the District Court and a Judge of the District Court, and
(b) a reference in section 200 of that Act to the registrar of a proclaimed place is taken to be a reference to the principal registrar, and
(c) section 201 of that Act applies to…

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 Sunol v Burns

Details

AGLC: Sunol v Burns [2018] NSWCATAD 259
Case: [2018] NSWCATAD 259
Decision Date: 08 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sunol v Burns, the respondent published material to the Registrar that was alleged to be contemptible. The applicant sought a referral to the Supreme Court for the respondent's conduct. The primary issue for the court was whether the respondent's publication of the material was capable of constituting contempt of the Tribunal, and if so, whether it was appropriate to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. The court also considered whether the respondent's conduct amounted to contempt of the Tribunal.

The court found that the respondent's publication of the material was capable of constituting contempt of the Tribunal, as it was an attempt to influence the Tribunal's decision-making process. However, the court held that it was not appropriate to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. The court reasoned that the matter could be adequately dealt with by the Tribunal, and that a referral to the Supreme Court was not necessary. The court also noted that the respondent had apologised for their conduct and that there was no evidence of any harm caused by the publication. The court concluded that the application for a referral to the Supreme Court should be dismissed.

The court dismissed the application for a referral to the Supreme Court, finding that the matter could be adequately dealt with by the Tribunal. The court noted that the respondent had apologised for their conduct and that there was no evidence of any harm caused by the publication. The court held that it was not appropriate to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, as the matter could be adequately dealt with by the Tribunal. The court found that the respondent's publication of the material was capable of constituting contempt of the Tribunal, but that a referral to the Supreme Court was not necessary. The court dismissed the application and made no further orders.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Sunol v Burns [2018] NSWCATAD 259
Hearing dates:	19 October 2018
Date of orders:	08 November 2018
Decision date:	08 November 2018
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	The Hon F Marks, Principal Member
Decision:	Application dismissed
Catchwords:	Contempt – application for referral to Supreme Court – publication by respondent of alleged contemptible material made to Registrar –publication of contemptible material made by Tribunal within Reasons for Decision – held conduct capable of constituting contempt of the Tribunal-held further not appropriate to make referral to Supreme Court – application dismissed.
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
Cases Cited:	Burns v Sunol (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 236 Burns v Sunol [2018] NSWCATAD 78 Attorney- General v Times Newspapers [1974] AC 273
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	John Christopher Sunol (Applicant) Garry Burns (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant Self Represented Respondent Self Represented
File Number(s):	2018/0015 4165
Publication restriction:	Nil