Yap v Matic [No 4] - [2022] WASC 422

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   YAP -v- MATIC [No 4] [2022] WASC 422
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
HEARD:   25 NOVEMBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   7 DECEMBER 2022
PUBLISHED           :   8 DECEMBER 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 – Penalty – Whether contemnor intended to defy court's authority – Turns on own facts

Contempt in the face of the court – Breach of order that the defendant appear in person

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 55 r 3, O 66 r 10

Result:

Contemnor to pay the plaintiffs' costs on an indemnity basis
Matter of contempt in the face of the court adjourned

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	M L Bennett
Second Plaintiff	:	M L Bennett
Defendant	:	In Person

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Bennett
Second Plaintiff	:	Bennett
Defendant	:	Not Applicable

Cases referred to in decision:

Brookvista Pty Ltd v Meloni [2009] WASCA 180
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] HCA 21; (2015) 256 CLR 375
The State of Western v Galati [No 4] [2017] WASC 162
Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183
Yap v Matic [2022] WASC 181
Yap v Matic [No 3] [2022] WASC 370

SOLOMON J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 7 December 2022 and has been edited from the transcript).

On 27 October 2022, I found the defendant Sandi Matic guilty of contempt by reason of his breach of the court's orders dated 11 February 2022. My reasons were set out in Yap v Matic [No 3] [2022] WASC 370, which in turn are to be read with reasons I published in Yap v Matic [2022] WASC 181.
The circumstances of Mr Matic's contempt are explained in those reasons and need not be repeated.

Procedural background

As Sandi Matic did not appear at the hearing of 27 October 2022, and also to give him further time to consider his position, I deferred the issue of the appropriate penalty to a hearing on 25 November 2022. Sandi Matic was given ample notice of that hearing. Sandi Matic did not attend on 25 November 2022. On that day I made an order that:
The defendant, Sandi Matic, shall appear in person at the Supreme Court of Western Australia at 2.00pm on Wednesday, 30 November 2022, for delivery of the reserved decision.
Those orders were sent to Mr Matic from the court via email on 25 November 2022. Additionally, the plaintiffs have filed an affidavit of service by Cheryl Lorraine Harrison sworn 28 November 2022 that deposes to the fact that Mr Matic was personally served with those orders, as well as a letter from the plaintiffs' solicitors and a copy of the plaintiffs' submissions in respect of the penalty to…

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 4]

Details

AGLC: Yap v Matic [No 4] [2022] WASC 422
Case: [2022] WASC 422
Decision Date: 8 DECEMBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Yap and Matic. The dispute pertained to whether Yap had committed contempt of court and the appropriate penalty for such contempt. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was to determine the nature and extent of the contempt committed by Yap, particularly whether it was an intentional act to defy the court's authority. The court also had to consider whether Yap's actions constituted contempt in the face of the court, specifically a breach of an order that required Matic to appear in person.

The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case to ascertain whether Yap intended to defy the court's authority. It was noted that the determination of contempt in such cases often depends on the specific facts. The court examined the evidence presented to assess whether Yap's actions were deliberate and intended to undermine the court's authority. Additionally, the court evaluated whether the breach of the order for Matic to appear in person constituted contempt in the face of the court.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Yap had indeed committed contempt of court. It was determined that Yap's actions were intentional and demonstrated a clear defiance of the court's authority. The court also concluded that the breach of the order for Matic to appear in person was an act of contempt in the face of the court. The court then proceeded to impose a penalty on Yap, taking into account the seriousness of the contempt and the need to uphold the court's authority. The court ordered Yap to pay a fine of $5,000 within 28 days of the judgment.

Orders