Yap v Matic

Yap and another (the plaintiffs) commenced proceedings against Matic and another (the defendants) in the District Court of Western Australia. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had engaged in contempt of court by contravening certain orders of the court in proceedings in which the plaintiffs and defendants were parties. The plaintiffs subsequently brought an application in the Supreme Court of Western Australia for an order committing the defendants to prison for contempt of court. Matic opposed the application and the case proceeded to hearing before Young J.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the summons contained all necessary particulars in relation to the substance of the allegation within the four corners of the document, and whether the evidence was capable of establishing a contempt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the summons was deficient as it did not make reference to the first and third allegations of contempt. The court also found that the summons did not comply with the requirements of Order 55 Rule 5 as it referred to an allegation of contempt constituted by an email dated 16 March 2022, when the relevant email was in fact dated 15 March 2022. However, the court did not dismiss the application as it was not satisfied that the evidence was incapable of establishing a contempt beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the email of 16 March 2022. The court decided to hear from the parties as to the further conduct of the application.

The court ordered that the parties appear before the court to be heard as to the further conduct of the application.