Tate v Duncan-Strelec

In the matter of Tate v Duncan-Strelec, the case arose from a failed joint venture agreement between two local government politicians, Tate and Duncan-Strelec. The dispute reached the court, which had to determine whether Duncan-Strelec's publication of material on the Internet, claiming Tate was a "criminal," constituted contempt of court. This arose after the conclusion of court proceedings related to the joint venture, raising questions about the applicability of contempt law in such circumstances.

The primary legal issues involved whether Duncan-Strelec's actions were actuated with the intent to exact a reprisal because Tate successfully defended the proceedings. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the law of contempt applies to conduct occurring after proceedings have concluded. Another issue was the contempt related to admissions of deleting emails after the service of a Notice to Produce. Furthermore, the court assessed if the publication of material on websites scandalised the court and whether the allegations of a breach of an implied undertaking were substantiated, particularly since the affidavits published online had not been used in the proceedings at the time of their publication.

In its reasoning, the court found that Duncan-Strelec's conduct constituted contempt of court. The court held that the publication of material claiming Tate was a "criminal" was actuated by a desire for reprisal due to the successful defence of the joint venture proceedings. The court also held that contempt law applies even after the conclusion of proceedings if the conduct is intended to undermine the court's authority. The court further found that the deletion of emails after the Notice to Produce was served constituted contempt. Finally, the court determined that the publication of the material on the Internet did scandalise the court and breached the implied undertaking by publishing affidavits not deployed in the proceedings.

The court issued orders requiring Duncan-Strelec to publish an apology and retraction of the defamatory statements made online, and to pay costs to Tate. Additionally, the court imposed a fine for the contempt related to the deletion of emails.