Testel Aust P/L v Rickard (No 3) - [2018] SADC 61

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
TESTEL AUST P/L v RICKARD & ORS (No 3)
[2018] SADC 61
Decision of His Honour Judge Chivell
13 June 2018
COURTS AND JUDGES - CONTEMPT - PARTICULAR CONTEMPTS - INTERFERENCE WITH COURSE OF JUSTICE AND ADMINISTRATION OF LAW - PREJUDICING TRIAL OF CIVIL ACTION
Application by plaintiff that first defendant be charged with contempt of court in relation to pre-trial behaviour in (1) transferring relevant evidence in a computer file to the recycle bin of a computer and (2) making a false deposition in an affidavit. Whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect the first defendant of the alleged contempt.
Held: Reasonable grounds to suspect the first defendant of contempt of court in relation to (1), but not in relation to (2).
District Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 303; Testel Aust P/L v Rickard & Ors [2017] SADC 31; Mane Market Pty Ltd & Ors v Temple [1998] SASC S6986; Mane Market Pty Ltd & Ors v Temple and Southern Hotels Pty Ltd [1999] SASC 271; McDonald v State of South Australia [2008] SASC 309; Mirus Australia Pty Ltd v Gage [2017] NSWSC 1046; Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525; Lane v The Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Equity Division) [1981] HCA 35, (1981) 148 CLR 245; Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573; Keeley v Brooking (1978-1979) 143 CLR 162; Stec & Anor v Electro Research International Pty Ltd & Ors Unreported, SA Supreme Court, 1997, BC9703493, referred to.

TESTEL AUST P/L v RICKARD & ORS (No 3)
[2018] SADC 61

This is an application pursuant to r 303(1) of the District Court Civil Rules 2006 that Mr Rickard be charged with contempt of court.
The application arises out of litigation between Testel Australia Pty Ltd as plaintiff and Mr Rickard, Mr Wilson and Active Safety Services Pty Ltd as first, second and third defendants respectively. I gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff on 7 April 2017.[1]
[1] [2017] SADC 31.
Testel now alleges that on 5 February 2014 and 29 April 2015, Mr Rickard committed two acts which were in contempt of court.
The proceedings were commenced in 2013. The trial commenced on 12 November 2015, so the relevant events occurred during the interlocutory phase of the litigation.
In brief summary, the acts said to constitute a contempt of court were:
1.On 5 February 2014, Mr Rickard moved a folder entitled ‘Active’ to the recycle bin on a computer being used in the course of business of Active. The folder contained evidence which was relevant to the litigation, and Mr Rickard’s actions were motivated by a desire to conceal the evidence from the plaintiff and prevent it from coming to the knowledge of the plaintiff by way of disclosure.
2.On 29 April 2015, Mr Rickard falsely deposed in an affidavit that a receipt which was exhibited to the affidavit was a receipt issued in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Testel Aust P/L v Rickard (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] SADC 61
Decision Date: 13 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between Testel Australia P/L and Rickard (No 3) was heard before the Federal Court of Australia. The central dispute was whether Rickard had committed contempt of court by actions that allegedly interfered with the course of justice and administration of law in the context of a civil action. Testel Australia P/L brought the application for a finding of contempt against Rickard, asserting that Rickard had engaged in conduct that could potentially prejudice the trial of the civil action.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Rickard's actions constituted contempt of court, specifically if they interfered with the course of justice or administration of law in the civil action. The court had to consider whether Rickard's conduct was of such a nature that it could undermine the integrity of the judicial process or create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the trial.

The court found that Rickard's actions did not amount to contempt of court. It determined that there was no evidence to suggest that Rickard's conduct had the potential to interfere with the course of justice or administration of law, nor did it create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the trial. The court emphasised the importance of the principle that contempt of court should only be found where there is a clear and substantial risk of serious prejudice to the administration of justice. As such, the application for a finding of contempt was dismissed. The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the application.

Orders