Bathurst CJ at [1]; Beazley P at [1]; McColl JA at [239]
Decision:
(1) Appeal allowed in part.
(2) Set aside orders 1, 2 and 3 of 23 April 2018 of the Supreme Court and, in lieu thereof, order that:
(a) the first, second and third appellants pay to the Registrar of the Court a fine for contempt of court in the sum of $7,500;
(b) the fourth appellant pay to the Registrar of the Court a fine for contempt of court in the sum of $2,500; and
(c) the appellants pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings below on an ordinary basis.
(3) The appellants to pay 75 per cent of the respondents’ costs of the appeal.
Catchwords:
CONTEMPT – appellants found guilty of contempt for threatening second respondent with religious sanctions for failing to submit to jurisdiction of a religious court in respect of an alleged commercial dispute – whether primary judge’s findings of contempt were those that were charged – whether primary judge erred in finding appellants placed improper pressure on second respondent to desist from asserting the alleged commercial dispute be resolved in a civil court, which had a real tendency to interfere with the administration of justice generally
SENTENCING – criminal contempt – penalties – fine – whether penalties imposed were manifestly excessive
COSTS – party/party – bases of quantification – indemnity basis – whether primary judge erred in finding appellants should pay part of respondents’ costs on an indemnity basis
[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 Ulman v Live Group Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ulman v Live Group Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 338
Case
[2018] NSWCA 338
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellants, Ulman and others, appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales where they were found guilty of contempt of court. The contempt arose from actions taken against the second respondent, who had allegedly failed to submit to the jurisdiction of a religious court concerning a commercial dispute. The appellants had threatened the second respondent with religious sanctions if they did not comply with the religious court's jurisdiction.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge's findings of contempt accurately reflected the charges laid against the appellants, and whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the appellants had exerted improper pressure on the second respondent. This pressure was alleged to have a real tendency to interfere with the administration of justice by discouraging the assertion of rights in civil courts. Additionally, the court considered whether the penalties imposed for criminal contempt were manifestly excessive and whether the primary judge had erred in ordering the appellants to pay a portion of the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It found that while the appellants were guilty of contempt, the primary judge's findings were not precisely aligned with the charges. The court set aside the original orders and substituted new ones. The first, second, and third appellants were each fined $7,500 for contempt, and the fourth appellant was fined $2,500. The court also ordered that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings below on an ordinary basis, rather than an indemnity basis, and that the appellants pay 75 per cent of the respondents' costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed in part.
(2) Set aside orders 1, 2 and 3 of 23 April 2018 of the Supreme Court and, in lieu thereof, order that:
(a) the first, second and third appellants pay to the Registrar of the Court a fine for contempt of court in the sum of $7,500;
(b) the fourth appellant pay to the Registrar of the Court a fine for contempt of court in the sum of $2,500; and
(c) the appellants pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings below on an ordinary basis.
(3) The appellants to pay 75 per cent of the respondents’ costs of the appeal.