Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 6)

The case of Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 6) involved a dispute between Thunder Studios Inc and Kazal regarding a contempt of court matter. The Federal Court was tasked with deciding whether an application by the contemnor, Kazal, for an order to be discharged before the end of a prison term imposed by the Full Court in a resentencing was within the original or appellate jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also had to determine whether a single judge had the power in original jurisdiction to order Kazal's discharge before the end of the term of sentence imposed by the Full Court.

The Court found that the distinction between civil and criminal contempts, although sometimes illusory or elusive, was still relevant. The proceeding for the contempts for which Kazal was convicted arose in the civil jurisdiction of the Court, although the contempts were criminal in nature. The Full Court affirmed and sentenced Kazal for four criminal contempts. The Court held that the contempts in charges 8 and 9 were criminal in nature as they involved interference with the administration of justice, which is a criminal contempt. The Court also considered the evidence of Kazal's rehabilitation and his belated expression of contrition but found that it was not sufficiently persuasive to warrant a remission of the sentence imposed for the purposes and reasons given by the Full Court.

The Court concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to discharge Kazal before the end of his prison term. While the Court accepted that Kazal was likely to abide by the undertakings he had offered and that this reflected a reformation of his conduct and behaviour towards the applicants and the authority of the Court, it did not think that his conduct and other evidence was sufficiently persuasive to warrant a discharge. The Court dismissed the interlocutory application filed on 27 October 2017 with costs.

The Court also noted that the undertaking dated 15 December 2017 given to the Court by counsel for Kazal that he will pay $100,000 into Court within three months of the determination of the interlocutory application filed on 27 October 2017, to be held on account of any costs orders against Kazal as assessed or agreed in favour of the applicants.