Legal Research
Cases
Yap v Matic [No 6]

Yap v Matic [No 6]

Case [2023] WASC 24 3 February 2023

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Contempt of Court

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   YAP -v- MATIC [No 6] [2023] WASC 24
CORAM:   ARCHER J
HEARD:   3 FEBRUARY 2023
DELIVERED          :   3 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 - Conduct had the tendency to interfere with the course of justice - Appropriate penalty - Indemnity costs - Imprisonment unless fine and costs paid

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Defendant ordered to serve three months imprisonment, such order not to be executed if, by 16 February 2023, the defendant pays a fine of $9,000 and costs of $10,854.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

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

Solicitors:

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

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

Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 84; (2012) 42 WAR 425
Brookvista Pty Ltd v Meloni [2009] WASCA 180
Caratti v Boban Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [No 2][2015] WASC 139
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 21; (2015) 256 CLR 375
Dental Board of Australia v Traianou [2011] WASC 293
Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S); (2003) 28 WAR 95
Guerinoni Nominees Pty Ltd v Cullen [2022] WASC 337
Infa‑Secure Pty Ltd v Crocker (No 2) [2016] FCA 202
Johnson v Denwest Nominees Pty Ltd t/as Cunderdin Roadhouse [2017] WASCA 200
Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111
Kennedy v Lovell [2002] WASCA 226
R v T [2022] WASCA 34
Re Colina; Ex parte Torney [1999] HCA 57; (1999) 200 CLR 386
Swansdale Pty Ltd v Whitcrest Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 129 (S)
The Owners of the Wills Building Strata Plan 38579 v Coleman [2018] WASC 219
Truong v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 177
Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525
Yap v Matic [No 4] [2022] WASC 422
Yap v Matic [No 5] [2023] WASC 15

ARCHER J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 3 February 2023 and has been edited to correct matters of grammar and language, include references, and add formatting.)

Introduction

On 30 January 2023, I found Sandi Matic guilty of criminal contempt. His conduct was sending an email on 16 August 2022 to four staff members of the plaintiffs' solicitors, the Chief Justice and Justice Solomon of this Court, copied to various members of Parliament (August Email).
In my judgment delivered on that day, I explained why.[1] That judgment should be read with these reasons. However, for convenience, I will repeat or summarise some of the matters I outlined in that judgment.
[1] Yap v Matic [No 5] [2023] WASC 15.
The August Email accused the plaintiffs' solicitors of 'committing fraud & submitting altered,…

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 6]

Details

AGLC: Yap v Matic [No 6] [2023] WASC 24
Case: [2023] WASC 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vivien Jit Sien Yap and Empire Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd, trading as Ray White (Dalkeith Claremont), filed proceedings against Sandi Matic in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The case revolves around allegations of contempt by Mr Matic, specifically through the dissemination of an email on 16 August 2022 to various recipients, including the plaintiffs' solicitors, the Chief Justice, and Justice Solomon of the Court, as well as various members of Parliament. The email in question accused the plaintiffs and their solicitors of committing fraud and submitting fabricated files and recordings. The court had to determine whether the email constituted contempt of court, and if so, what the appropriate penalty would be.

The court found that Mr Matic's email had the tendency to deter the plaintiffs from continuing their action against him, amounting to improper pressure. The seriousness of the allegations, their emphatic tone, and the broad dissemination of the email beyond the plaintiffs and their lawyers to judicial officers and politicians all contributed to the contempt. The court considered various legal principles in determining the appropriate penalty, including the importance of punishing contempt to protect the due administration of justice and the need for both general and personal deterrence. The court also took into account factors such as the seriousness of the contempt, Mr Matic's culpability, and the absence of remorse or apology.

The court determined that imprisonment was the only appropriate penalty, with the execution of the sentence suspended on the condition that Mr Matic pays a fine of $9,000 and the plaintiffs' costs of $10,854 by 16 February 2023. If Mr Matic pays the fine and costs by the specified date, he will not be imprisoned. The court also ordered that Mr Matic attend a further hearing on 17 February 2023 and that he may apply to the court to be discharged from custody if he pays the fine and costs before that date.

Orders