Yap v Matic [No 3] - [2022] WASC 370

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   YAP -v- MATIC [No 3] [2022] WASC 370
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
HEARD:   12 APRIL & 27 OCTOBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   27 OCTOBER 2022
PUBLISHED           :   1 NOVEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1106 of 2022
BETWEEN:   VIVIEN JIT SIEN YAP
First Plaintiff

EMPIRE SONS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD T/AS RAY WHITE (DALKEITH CLAREMONT)
Second Plaintiff

AND

SANDI MATIC
Defendant

Catchwords:

Contempt of court – Breach of court orders – Whether conduct amounted to a breach – Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Defendant guilty of contempt

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	Mr M L Bennett
Second Plaintiff	:	Mr M L Bennett
Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Bennett
Second Plaintiff	:	Bennett
Defendant	:	No appearance

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Yap & Anor v Matic [2022] WASC 181

SOLOMON J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 27 October 2022 and has been edited from the transcript)

This is an application brought by the first plaintiff in respect of an allegation of contempt by reason of the defendant, Sandi Matic's, alleged breach of the orders of the court.
The application for contempt was initially made by chamber summons on 22 March 2022. On 12 April 2022, I heard the application for contempt and I published reasons on 23 May 2022 (the May Reasons).[1] These reasons should be read and understood together with that decision.
[1] Yap & Anor v Matic [2022] WASC 181.
The relevant orders said to be breached are those made by the court on 11 February 2022. They are set out at [15] of the May Reasons, and in particular, order 1(iv) of those orders, which provided that:
The defendant is restrained and an injunction is granted restraining the defendant, until further order of the court, from threatening the first plaintiff.
In the May Reasons, I set out my consideration of the first plaintiff's application for contempt by the defendant, Sandi Matic. As is explained, the first plaintiff's chamber summons identified three instances of alleged contempt. However, by reason of a deficiency in the chamber summons, I could not find in favour of the first plaintiff. Additionally, I was not prepared to entertain an application for leave to amend the application in respect of the first and third instances of alleged contempt, but I did leave open the possibility of a further consideration of the application in respect of the second instance.
The second instance concerns an email sent by Mr Matic to the first plaintiff's solicitors, Bennett + Co (as they then were) on 16 March 2022. The relevant content of that email, to which I shall return, is set out at [164] of the reasons of the May Reasons.
After publication of the May Reasons, the first plaintiff applied to amend the application to cure the deficiency in the summons. There were various directions hearings relating, at least in part, to that application. The outcome of those hearings was…

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 Yap v Matic [No 3]

Details

AGLC: Yap v Matic [No 3] [2022] WASC 370
Case: [2022] WASC 370
Decision Date: 1 NOVEMBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yap v Matic [No 3] involved the parties, Yap and Matic, who were embroiled in a dispute concerning allegations of contempt of court and breaches of court orders. The matter was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the conduct of the parties amounted to a breach of the court's orders. The court needed to assess the nature and extent of the alleged breaches and decide whether the conduct of the parties warranted a finding of contempt.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the conduct of Yap and Matic amounted to a breach of the court's orders. This required an analysis of the specific orders that had been made, the conduct of the parties, and whether the conduct was in defiance of the orders. The court had to consider the principles of contempt of court and the relevant authorities, such as the case of Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd, to establish whether the conduct of the parties could be characterised as a breach.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented and the submissions made by the parties. It examined the nature and context of the orders that had been made and assessed the conduct of the parties in light of those orders. The court concluded that the conduct of Yap and Matic did not amount to a breach of the court's orders. It found that while there had been some non-compliance, it did not reach the threshold of contempt of court. The court's reasoning was based on the specific facts of the case, and it determined that the conduct did not amount to a serious interference with the administration of justice.

As a result of the court's findings, no orders of contempt were made against either party. The court's decision was based on the particular circumstances of the case and the evidence before it. The outcome was that the parties were not found to be in breach of the court's orders, and no further action was taken against them for their conduct.

Orders