Yap v Matic [No 5] - [2023] WASC 15

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   YAP -v- MATIC [No 5] [2023] WASC 15
CORAM:   ARCHER J
HEARD:   24 & 30 JANUARY 2023
DELIVERED          :   30 JANUARY 2023
PUBLISHED           :   1 FEBRUARY 2023
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 – Whether conduct had the tendency to interfere with the course of justice – Whether it had the tendency to improperly deter the plaintiffs from persisting in their action against the defendant

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Defendant found guilty of contempt

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:

Day v Woolworths Group Limited [2021] QCA 42
Resolute Limited & Anor v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525
Yap v Matic [2022] WASC 181
Yap v Matic [No 3] [2022] WASC 370
Yap v Matic [No 4] [2022] WASC 422

ARCHER J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 30 January 2023 and has been edited to correct matters of grammar, include complete references and add formatting.)

Introduction

The plaintiffs filed an application to commit the defendant for criminal contempt pursuant to O 55 r 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC). The application is based on an email apparently sent by the defendant on 16 August 2022. The email was sent to four staff members of the plaintiffs' solicitors: Jessica Border, Nathan Ebbs, Martin Bennett, and Sally Elliott. The email was also sent to the Chief Justice and Justice Solomon of this court. It was copied to various members of parliament.
The author of the email alleged that the plaintiffs' solicitors were committing fraud and deliberately submitting materials fabricated by their clients to dishonestly benefit their clients. The author wrote that the email should be treated as a notice of intention to report a crime to various authorities.
The plaintiffs submit that the email plainly had a very clear practical tendency to deter the plaintiffs from persisting in their action against the defendant. The plaintiffs assert, therefore, that the sending of the email was a criminal contempt.

Background

The history of the proceedings was comprehensively set out by Solomon J in Yap v Matic[1] and subsequent decisions his Honour has published in this matter.[2] Much of what follows draws upon, or reproduces, his Honour's remarks.
[1] Yap v Matic [2022] WASC 181 [1] ‑ [109].
[2] See Yap v Matic [No 3] [2022] WASC 370 and Yap v Matic [No 4] [2022] WASC 422.
On 10 February 2022, the plaintiffs filed a writ in this court seeking an injunction and damages against the defendant, Sandi Matic, in respect of statements and…

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 5]

Details

AGLC: Yap v Matic [No 5] [2023] WASC 15
Case: [2023] WASC 15
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yap v Matic [No 5] involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Vivien Jit Si Yen Yap and Empire Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd t/as Ray White (Daleith Claremont), and the defendant, Sandi Matic. The plaintiffs filed an application to commit the defendant for criminal contempt, alleging that an email sent by the defendant had the tendency to improperly deter the plaintiffs from persisting in their action against the defendant. The court was required to determine whether the email had a tendency to deter the plaintiffs from continuing their action against the defendant, and whether this amounted to a criminal contempt.

The court found that the email had a tendency to deter the plaintiffs from persisting in their action against the defendant, and that this amounted to a criminal contempt. The email accused the plaintiffs' solicitors of committing fraud and submitting fabricated files and recordings, and the author of the email announced their intention to report the conduct of the plaintiffs and their lawyers as a crime to various authorities. The court found that the email was sent by the defendant, and that it had a tendency to deter the plaintiffs from continuing their action against the defendant.

The court found the defendant guilty of criminal contempt and ordered a hearing to be held to determine the penalty to be imposed for the contempt. The court emphasised the seriousness of the charge and the potential penalties, and urged the defendant to obtain legal assistance. The court also noted the defendant's attempts to avoid responsibility for his actions and his previous attempts to mislead the court about his identity.

In conclusion, the court found that the email sent by the defendant had a tendency to deter the plaintiffs from persisting in their action against him, and that this amounted to a criminal contempt. The defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt and a hearing was scheduled to determine the penalty to be imposed. The case highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal system and the consequences of attempting to interfere with the administration of justice.

Orders