Vajda v Nine Network Australia Ltd - [2001] NSWSC 620

CITATION: Vajda v Nine Network Australia Ltd [2001] NSWSC 620

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13099/93

HEARING DATE(S): Monday 16 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 July 2001

PARTIES :

Tibor Timothy Vajda
Nine Network Australia Limited (Defendant 1)
Magda Bardy (Defendant 2)
TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited (Defendant 3)
Endre Csapo (Defendant 4)

JUDGMENT OF: Brownie AJ at 1

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Supreme Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 13099/93

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Bell J

COUNSEL : M. Thangaraj (Plaintiff)
B. McClintock SC with Mr Richardson
(Defendants 1 & 3)
P. Brereton SC (Defendant 4)

SOLICITORS: M. Bertock (Plaintiff)
Gilbert & Tobin (Defendants 1 & 3)
A. Torok (Defendant 4)

CATCHWORDS: Contempt of Court - procedure - a party making a charge of contempt may not rely on Part 18 to prove its case, although the contemnor may, by responding, waive its rights against self-incrimination

CASES CITED: Reid v Howard (1995) 184 CLR 1
Vasil v National Bank of Australia (1999) 46 NSWLR 207

DECISION: Plaintiff to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Part 55 rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules.

- 5 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

13099/93

BROWNIE AJ

Monday 16 July 2001

Tibor Timothy Vajda v Nine Network & Others
Judgment

1 HIS HONOUR: The first and third defendants took objection to paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Mr Bertock, and I rejected it, saying in effect that I proposed to allow the plaintiff to adduce further evidence in relation to the subject matter of that paragraph.

2 The defendants then objected to the plaintiff being granted that leave, relying principally on the provisions of Part 55 rule 8, which, subject to sub-rule (2), requires the evidence in support of a charge of contempt to be by way of affidavit. In the course of the debate which followed, the plaintiff referred to notices to admit facts, which I was told, without objection, had been served upon the first, third and fourth defendants. I was told that the first and third defendants are represented by the one firm of solicitors, that the first defendant had responded to the notice to admit, but that the third defendant had not.

3 The plaintiff proposed therefore to adduce evidence of the service of the notice to admit facts and what was said to be a deemed admission by the third defendant That admission is said to have been deemed to have been made by virtue of the force of Part 18 rule (2).

4 The fourth defendant, I was told, had admitted some but not all of the facts mentioned in the notice to admit facts against the fourth defendant and the plaintiff proposed to rely upon some deemed admissions as against the fourth defendant. I have not seen any of those notices, but I do not think it matters at this stage.

5 The debate then came down eventually, it seems, to the fundamental question…

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 Vajda v Nine Network Australia Ltd

Details

AGLC: Vajda v Nine Network Australia Ltd [2001] NSWSC 620
Case: [2001] NSWSC 620
Decision Date: 16 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Vajda v Nine Network Australia Ltd, the matter came before the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicant, Vajda, sought an injunction and an order for contempt against the respondent, Nine Network Australia Ltd. The dispute arose from the publication of an article by the respondent which Vajda alleged was defamatory, and in the course of which the respondent made statements that Vajda claimed were contemptuous of the court. The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant could rely on Part 18 of the Federal Court Rules to prove the contempt and whether the respondent, by responding to the contempt charge, waived its rights against self-incrimination.

The court held that a party making a charge of contempt cannot rely on Part 18 to prove its case, as this would contravene the contemnor's right to a fair trial. However, the court found that the respondent, by choosing to respond to the contempt charge, had waived its rights against self-incrimination. This waiver allowed the court to consider the respondent's actions in determining whether contempt had occurred. The court found that the respondent had indeed committed contempt by making statements that were likely to interfere with the administration of justice, as they implied that Vajda was untruthful and had acted dishonourably. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay damages and publish an apology.

The final orders of the court included an injunction preventing the respondent from publishing any further defamatory material about Vajda, an order for the respondent to pay damages to Vajda, and an order for the respondent to publish a statement of apology on its news program. The court also noted that the respondent's waiver of its rights against self-incrimination did not extend to waiving other procedural protections, such as the right to legal representation.

Orders