Slater v Smith (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 759

Slater v Smith (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 759

The emails and correspondence relied on by Mr Smith and Mr Bishop were, at highest, ill-considered, ill-tempered, or sharp, but they did not constitute threats or conduct that would interfere with the administration of justice. Mr Slater's partial use of Blue J's comments did not come close to the kind of conduct on which contempt laws are predicated. The applications to have Mr Slater charged with contempt therefore had no merit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Contempt Applications in Defamation Proceedings / Determination of Notices of Motion Seeking an Order That Matthew Slater Be Charged With Contempt
Outcome
The notices of motion brought by David Bishop and Jeffrey Malcolm Smith were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['contempt in Relation to Pending Proceedings' 'self Represented Litigants' 'cross Vesting Application' 'litigation Correspondence' 'indemnity Costs and Personal Costs Threats']
['civil Law' 'contempt' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['contempt in Relation to Pending Proceedings' 'self Represented Litigants' 'cross Vesting Application' 'litigation Correspondence' 'indemnity Costs and Personal Costs Threats']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Contempt Applications in Defamation Proceedings / Determination of Notices of Motion Seeking an Order That Matthew Slater Be Charged With Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether correspondence sent by Mr Slater threatening to seek indemnity costs or personal costs, or to contact shareholders, was capable of amounting to contempt of court.' "Whether Mr Slater's selective use of comments made by Blue J in the Supreme Court of South Australia was capable of amounting to contempt of court." 'Whether the Court should order that Mr Slater be charged with contempt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The emails and correspondence relied on by Mr Smith and Mr Bishop were, at highest, ill-considered, ill-tempered, or sharp, but they did not constitute threats or conduct that would interfere with the administration of justice. Mr Slater's partial use of Blue J's comments did not come close to the kind of conduct on which contempt laws are predicated. The applications to have Mr Slater charged with contempt therefore had no merit.

Court Disposition

The notices of motion brought by David Bishop and Jeffrey Malcolm Smith were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion brought by David Bishop filed 10 May 2021 is dismissed.' 'The notice of motion brought by Jeffery Malcolm Smith filed 12 May 2021 is dismissed.']