Legal Research
Cases
Yap v Matic [No 7]

Yap v Matic [No 7]

Case [2023] WASC 55 1 March 2023

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   YAP -v- MATIC [No 7] [2023] WASC 55
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
HEARD:   13 DECEMBER 2022, 30 JANUARY 2023 & 23 FEBRUARY 2023
DELIVERED          :   23 FEBRUARY 2023
PUBLISHED           :   1 MARCH 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 - Penalty - Whether conduct was contumelious - Whether imprisonment appropriate penalty - Where contemnor serving a prison sentence

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 55 r 3, r 7, r 8
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Defendant sentenced to 21 days' immediate imprisonment

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

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

Commissioner for Fair Trading v Holz [2006] WASC 202 (S)
Corruption and Crime Commission v Allbeury [No 2] [2011] WASC 26
Hunt v Clarke (1889) 58 LJ (QB) 490
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351
Mansell v Mignacca-Randazzo [2013] WASC 66
R v T [2022] WASCA 34
The Commissioner for Consumer Protection v Armstrong [No 5] [2015] WASC 37
Wood v Staunton [No 5] (1996) 86 A Crim R 183
Yap v Matic [No 4] [2022] WASC 522
Yap v Matic [No 6] [2023] WASC 24

SOLOMON J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 23 February 2023 and has been edited from the transcript.)

Introduction and background

On 13 December 2022, I found Sandi Matic guilty of contempt in the face of the court by his failure to appear before the court on 30 November 2022, contrary to the court's order. The background and context of that contempt is set out in Yap v Matic [No 4] [2022] WASC 522. These reasons relate to the penalty to be imposed by the court in relation to that contempt.
Mr Matic had previously been found guilty of contempt by my orders dated 27 October 2022. In relation to the first contempt conviction, I ordered that Mr Matic pay the plaintiffs' costs on an indemnity basis. I also noted in that judgment that:
I will take this opportunity, however, to urge Mr Matic to use this occasion to appreciate the gravity of what he has done. Mr Matic ought to realise that he must proceed in his affairs with an unqualified acceptance of the court's authority, and in particular the requirement that he obey the court's orders.[1]
[1] Yap v Matic [No 4] [2022] WASC 522 [37].
At the conclusion of that hearing, Sandi Matic expressed a desire to seek legal advice. I adjourned the matter of the second charge for contempt of court to give Sandi Matic that opportunity.
On 13 December 2022, the matter returned so that Mr Matic could present his defence…

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 7]

Details

AGLC: Yap v Matic [No 7] [2023] WASC 55
Case: [2023] WASC 55
Decision Date: 1 MARCH 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Yap v Matic, the Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the contemnor, Yap, had acted in a manner that was contumelious and whether imprisonment was an appropriate penalty given that Yap was already serving a prison sentence. The primary focus of the case was on whether Yap's conduct constituted contempt of court. The respondent, Matic, sought a finding of contempt against Yap, who had made comments about the integrity of the court's proceedings, which were considered by Matic to be defamatory and disrespectful.

The court had to decide whether Yap's comments were indeed contumelious and warranted a finding of contempt. Additionally, the court needed to assess the appropriate penalty, taking into account that Yap was already serving a sentence for unrelated offences. The court was required to balance the need to uphold the dignity of the court against the principle of double punishment, given that Yap was already incarcerated.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the nature and context of Yap's comments. The court concluded that Yap's remarks, while disrespectful, did not rise to the level of contumelious conduct that would warrant a finding of contempt. Furthermore, the court determined that imposing additional imprisonment would amount to double punishment, which is generally not permissible. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for contempt, finding that Yap's conduct did not merit the imposition of a penalty beyond his existing sentence.

Orders