Tate v Duncan-Strelec - [2014] NSWSC 1135

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1135
Hearing dates: 20 August 2014
Decision date: 20 August 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Bergin CJ in Eq
Decision:
Orders made for the filing of medical reports with the Court. Matter adjourned for consideration of any punishment to be imposed

Catchwords: [CONTEMPT] - considerations in respect of findings of guilt on Charges of contempt of Court - where offending publication no longer accessible - where third party (a person previously acting as a solicitor for the contemnor) communicates with Court whilst judgment reserved - where appropriate to have evidence in respect of certain health issues of contemnor before further consideration of any punishment to be imposed
Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Rules 1970
Cases Cited: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1125
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Thomas Richard Tate (Plaintiff)
Amanda Duncan-Strelec (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
GR Rubagotti (Plaintiff)
Amanda Duncan-Strelec (In person)
Solicitors:
Hickey Lawyers (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2013/367092
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The contemnor, Amanda Duncan-Strelec, has been found guilty on five charges of contempt of Court. The conduct, the subject of the findings of guilt, is the publication of the Website referred to in detail in the reasons for judgment delivered today which should be read with these reasons: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1125 (the Judgment). It is now necessary to consider the question of punishment in accordance with Part 55 Rule 13 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970.

The parties were notified on 15 August 2014 that judgment in the matter would be delivered on 20 August 2014. On 16 August 2014 Mr James Wilson, the person referred to in paragraph [27] of the Judgment, wrote by email addressed to me, with a copy to the solicitors for the plaintiff in the following terms:

I am aware that you are soon to hand down judgement in the Tom Tate v Amanda Duncan-Strelec matter.

I refer you to the below Press Release and Affidavit.

I also refer you to the fact that I have made a complaint to the NSW Police and the Crime and Misconduct Commission of Qld, based on the information contained in the Affidavit.

I am sending you this material as I believe it is my duty, as a solicitor of the Supreme Court, to ensure that you are directly apprised of information that is now a matter of public record. Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

The "Press Release" recorded that Mr Wilson was calling for a "full judicial inquiry" into a failed forestry project with some relevance to the Forestry Bonds referred to in the Judgment (for instance at [180]-[186]). The Affidavit calls into question some of the plaintiff's evidence that was given in these proceedings under cross-examination by the defendant on 15 July 2014 with reference to the pages of the transcript

This email was provided to the parties in Court this morning. The following exchange took place (where…

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 Tate v Duncan-Strelec

Details

AGLC: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1135
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1135
Decision Date: 20 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tate v Duncan-Strelec, the dispute arose from allegations of contempt of court. The parties involved were Tate, the contemnor, and Duncan-Strelec, the party against whom the alleged contempt was directed. The court was required to determine whether Tate's actions constituted contempt and, if so, what punishment should be imposed.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Tate's publications amounted to contempt of court, given that the offending material was no longer accessible, and whether the court should consider health-related evidence regarding Tate before deciding on any punishment. Additionally, the court had to address the issue of a third party, previously acting as a solicitor for Tate, communicating with the court while judgment was reserved.

The court reasoned that since the offending publication was no longer accessible, it was essential to consider the circumstances surrounding the publication and its potential impact on the proceedings. The court also found that the communication from the third party, while concerning, did not warrant a departure from the usual procedures. Regarding Tate's health issues, the court determined that it was appropriate to have evidence of these issues before further considering any punishment to be imposed. This was to ensure that the court could make an informed decision that took into account all relevant factors.

The court ultimately found Tate guilty of contempt of court and ordered that appropriate evidence regarding Tate's health issues be provided before any further punishment was decided. This decision ensures that the court has all necessary information to make an informed and fair decision regarding the punishment to be imposed.

Orders